PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


\ 


BR  45  .B63  1882 

Harris,  Samuel  Smith,  1841- 

1888. 

shelf....   The  relation  of  Christianity 

to  civil  society 


3Hje  38of)lcn  iLccturcs,  1882 


THE 


RELATION  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


CIVIL    SOCIETY 


BY. 

SAMUEL  SMITH^HARRIS,   D.D.,  LL.D. 
33tsfjop  ai  iffiltrijtgan 


DELIVERED    IN    THE    CHURCH   OF    THE   HOLY    TRINITY, 
PHILADELPHIA,  IN  ADVENT,  1882 


NEW  YORK 
THOMAS    WHITTAKER 

2   AND   3   BIBLE   HOUSE 
1883 


Copyright,  1883, 
By  THOMAS  WHITTAKER. 


Jfranklin  ^reus : 

RAND,    AVERY,    AND   COMPANY, 
BOSTON. 


THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP. 


John  Bohlen,  who  died  in  this  city  on  the  twenty-sixth 
day  of  April,  1874,  bequeathed  to  trustees  a  fund  of  One 
Hundred  Thousand  Dollars,  to  be  distributed  to  religious 
and  charitable  objects  in  accordance  with  the  well-known 
wishes  of  the  testator. 

By  a  deed  of  trust,  executed  June  2,  1875,  tne  trus~ 
tees,  under  the  will  of  Mr.  Bohlen,  transferred  and  paid 
over  to  "The  Rector,  Church  Wardens,. and  Vestrymen 
of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  Philadelphia,"  in 
trust,  a  sum  of  money  for  certain  designated  purposes, 
out  of  which  fund  the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dollars  was 
set  apart  for  the  endowment  of  The  John  Bohlen  Lec- 
tureship, upon  the  following  terms  and  conditions  :  — 

"The  money  shall  be  invested  in  good,  substantial,  and  safe 
securities,  and  held  in  trust  for  a  fund  to  be  called  The  John 
Bohlen  Lectureship;  and  the  income  shall  be  applied  annually  to 
the  payment  of  a  qualified  person,  whether  clergyman  or  layman, 
for  the  delivery  and  publication  of  at  least  one  hundred  copies  of 
two  or  more  lecture  sermons.  These  lectures  shall  be  delivered 
at  such  time  and  place,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  as  the  persons 

3 


The  John  Bohlen  Lectureship. 


nominated  to  appoint  the  lecturer  shall  from  time  to  time  deter- 
mine, giving  at  least  six-months'  notice  to  the  person  appointed  to 
deliver  the  same,  when  the  same  may  conveniently  be  done,  and 
in  no  case  selecting  the  same  person  as  lecturer  a  second  time 
within  a  period  of  five  years.  The  payment  shall  be  made  to  said 
lecturer,  after  the  lectures  have  been  printed,  and  received  by  the 
trustees,  of  all  the  income  for  the  year  derived  from  said  fund, 
after  defraying  the  expense  of  printing  the  lectures,  and  the  other 
incidental  expenses  attending  the  same. 

"The  subject  of  such  lectures  shall  be  such  as  is  within  the 
terms  set  forth  in  the  will  of  the  Rev.  John  Bampton,  for  the  de- 
livery of  what  are  known  as  the  '  Bampton  Lectures,'  at  Oxford, 
or  any  other  subject  distinctively  connected  with  or  relating  to  the 
Christian  Religion. 

"The  lecturer  shall  be  appointed  annually  in  the  month  of 
May,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  can  conveniently  be  done,  by  the 
persons  who  for  the  time  being  shall  hold  the  offices  of  Bishop  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Diocese  in  which  is  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  the  Rector  of  said  Church;  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  Learning,  the  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity, 
and  the  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  in  the  Divinity  School 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia. 

"  In  case  either  of  said  offices  are  vacant,  the  others  may  nomi- 
nate the  lecturer." 

Under  this  trust  the  Right  Reverend  Samuel  Smith 
Harris,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Michi- 
gan, was  appointed  to  deliver  the  lectures  for  the  year 
1882. 

Philadelphia,  Advent,  1882. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE    I. 

PAGE 

The  Question  Stated 9 

"Then  went  the  Pharisees,  and  took  counsel  how  they  might 
entangle  him  in  his  talk.  And  they  sent  out  unto  him  their  disci- 
ples with  the  Herodians,  saying,  Master,  we  know  that  thou  art 
true,  and  teachest  the  way  of  God  in  truth,  neither  carest  thou  for 
any  man :  for  thou  regardest  not  the  person  of  men.  Tell  us 
therefore,  What  thinkest  thou  ?    Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 

Caesar,  or  not  ? " 

St.  Matthew  xxii.  15-17. 

LECTURE    II. 

The  Answer  of  Christ,  and  the  Developments  of 

European  History 37 

"  But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness,  and  said,  Why  tempt  ye 
me,  ye  hypocrites?  Shew  me  the  tribute  money.  And  they 
brought  unto  him  a  penny.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Whose  is  this 
image  and  superscription?  They  say  unto  him,  Caesar's.  Then 
saith  he  unto  them,  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  which 
are  Caesar's ;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's." 

St.  Matthew  xxii.  18-21. 

LECTURE   III. 

The  Answer  of  Christ,  and  the  Developments  of 
American  History 79 

"If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend." 

St.  John  xix.  12. 

5 


Contents. 


LECTURE   IV. 

PAGE 

Education 123 

"  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

St.  Matthew  xxviii.  18-20. 

LECTURE   V. 

Charity 159 

"  For  ye  have  the  poor  with  you  always,  and  whensoever  ye  will 
ye  may  do  them  good." 

St.  Mark  xiv.  7. 

LECTURE  VI. 

The  Ultimate  Issue 199 

"  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king  then?  Jesus 
answered,  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  was  I  born, 
and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness 
unto  the  truth.     Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice." 

St.  John  xviii.  37. 


LECTURE   I. 

THE   QUESTION   STATED. 


THE  RELATION  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


CIVIL    SOCIETY 


LECTURE   I. 

THE   QUESTION   STATED. 

"  Then  went  the  Pharisees,  and  took  counsel  how  they  might  entangle 
him  in  his  talk.  And  they  sent  out  unto  him  their  disciples  with  the  Hero- 
dians,  saying,  Master,  we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and  teachest  the  way 
of  God  in  truth,  neither  carest  thou  for  any  man :  for  thou  regardest  not 
the  person  of  men.  Tell  us  therefore,  What  thinkest  thou  ?  Is  it  lawful 
to  give  tribute  unto  Csesar,  or  not  ?  "  —  St.  Matthew  xxii.  15-17. 

TN  this  passage  we  are  told  under  what  circum- 
-*-  stances  and  with  what  design  the  question 
which  is  now  to  engage  our  thought  was  first 
proposed  to  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  No 
doubt  the  inquiry  which  the  Pharisees  and  Hero- 
dians  made  was  not  only  disingenuous,  but  was 
far  more  limited  in  its  intent  than  ours  must  be. 
Their  purpose  was   to  betray  Jesus  into   one  of 

9 


io  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

two  alternative  dangers  in  defining  the  attitude 
of  what  they  regarded  as  a  Jewish  religious  cult, 
toward  a  government  that  was  at  once  foreign 
and  despotic.  Yet,  whatever  their  purpose  was, 
the  formal  reason  upon  which  they  proceeded  was 
the  obvious  need  that  there  should  be  some 
authoritative  definition  of  the  relation  which  Jesus 
intended  should  subsist  between  his  teaching  and 
the  requirements  of  the  existing  government  or 
civil  society.  That  such  a  question  should  be 
propounded  in  some  form  was,  indeed,  inevitable. 
In  the  midst  of  the  antagonisms,  open  and  con- 
cealed, which  agitated  that  restless  age,  neutrality 
in  such  a  matter  was  believed  to  be  impossible. 
Especially,  for  reasons  which  must  hereafter 
engage  our  attention,  the  assumption  of  such 
neutrality  would  have  been  resented  as  quite 
intolerable  in  one  who,  like  Jesus,  claimed  to  be 
the  anointed  Prince  of  the  house  of  David. 

We  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  consider 
the  answer  which  Jesus  returned  to  his  interloc- 
utors, and  we  shall  then  see  that  such  answer  was 
not  less  complete  than  it  was  unexpected  and 
surprising.  For  the  present  it  may  suffice  to 
point  out,  in  passing,  that  it  disclosed  a  relation 


i.]  To  Civil  Society.  II 

between  Christianity  and  civil  society  which 
could  hardly  fail  to  be  unsatisfactory  to  all  parties 
in  that  day.  To  the  secularist  Herodian,  not  less 
than  to  the  theocratic  Pharisee,  it  indicated  a 
modus  vivendi  between  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
authority  that  appeared  to  be  both  unintelligible 
and  intolerable.  The  antagonism  between  the 
two  opposing  ideas  which  they  represented  is  not 
yet  extinct,  nor  has  the  world  yet  learned  alto- 
gether to  accept  the  marvellous  reconciliation  of 
it  that  is  implied  in  the  answer  of  Jesus.  For 
more  than  eighteen  centuries  of  Christian  history, 
grave  problems  of  civil  allegiance  and  social  order 
have  emerged  along  the  line  of  the  great  move- 
ment which  he  instituted;  and  prophets  and 
statesmen  are  still  trying  to  find  the  principle 
which  shall  effect  a  final  solution  of  them.  I 
believe  that  the  search  need  not  be  abandoned  as 
unavailing.  I  believe  that  the  Founder  of  Chris- 
tianity himself  laid  down  the  principle  which  the 
world  has  so  long  been  seeking,  and  that  a  rever- 
ent and  humble  search  for  it  now  will  not  be 
wholly  unrewarded.  With  unfeigned  humility  I 
venture  to-night  to  renew  the  attempt  to  discover 
and  formulate  that  principle;  believing  that,  upon 


12  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

its  acknowledgment,  the  civil  and  religious  well- 
being  of  our  fellow-countrymen  largely  depends, 
and  that  we  must  look  to  the  recognition  of  it  for 
the  development  of  a  genuine  Christian  states- 
manship in  our  land. 

It  is  my  purpose,  however,  to  postpone  to  the 
second  lecture  of  this  series,  the  consideration  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  this  subject,  and  to  at- 
tempt in  this  preliminary  lecture  to  define  the 
philosophical  basis  upon  which  our  inquiry  is  to 
rest.  If  any  justification  is  needed  for  the  more 
extended  demand  which  this  method  will  make 
upon  our  attention,  it  will  be  found,  I  venture  to 
think,  in  the  essential  importance  of  our  inquiry, 
and  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  age, 
which  make  it  both  practical  and  timely.  No 
discussion  of  such  a  subject  can  be  of  value  that 
does  not  proceed  from  a  philosophical  basis ; 
that  is  to  say,  from  a  basis  or  first  principle  that 
shall  be,  not  merely  indicated  by  authority,  but 
established  by  reason.  It  is  well  seen,  that  the 
gravest  interests,  both  of  politics  and  religion,  are 
awaiting  at  this  moment  the  discovery  of  some 
middle  ground,  where  they  may  be  reconciled  and 
harmonized.      Such   burning   questions   as    those 


I.]  To  Civil  Society.  13 

relating  to  religious  and  secular  education,  to  labor 
and  capital,  to  the  standard  of  public  morality, 
to  the  administration  of  justice  and  charity, — 
such  are  the  questions  that  are  standing  in  the 
outer  court  of  our  forum  ;  and,  if  we  are  to  try 
them,  we  must,  first  of  all,  establish  some  common 
philosophical  ground  where  all  the  contesting  in- 
terests may  meet  on  equal  terms.  I  believe  that 
the  solution  of  all  these  questions  will  be  found 
in  the  recognition  of  the  true  relation  between 
Christianity  and  civil  society,  and  in  the  free 
action  of  each  upon  the  other  in  that  relation. 
But  then  we  must,  first  of  all,  make  up  the 
pleadings,  as  the  lawyers  would  say ;  that  is  to 
say,  we  must  allow  each  side  to  tell  its  own  story. 
We  must  first  understand  what  civil  society  is,  from 
a  purely  political  stand-point,  just  as  we  shall  insist 
on  defining  Christianity  from  a  purely  religious 
stand-point ;  and  then  we  shall  endeavor  to  indi- 
cate the  relation  between  them. 

First,  then,  we  must  determine  the  fundamental 
question,  What  is  the  State?  —  what  is  the  philo- 
sophical basis  of  civil  society  ?  To  this  question 
there  have  been  various  answers.  Considered  in 
its  relation  to  the  Church,  some  of  these  answers 


14  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

have  emerged  in  history  as  the  characteristic 
views  of  ecclesiastical  or  political  parties.  For 
instance,  the  Papist  would  define  the  State  as  a 
creature  of  the  Church ;  the  Erastian  would  make 
the  Church  a  department  of  the  State ;  the  Puri- 
tan would  regulate  the  State  on  Church  ideas ; 
the  Hobbist  would  rule  the  Church  on  reasons  of 
State  ;  the  Quaker  would  abolish  Church  organ- 
ization ;  and  the  Mennonite  would  suppress  the 
office  of  the  civil  magistrate.1  All  these  views 
are  held  in  our  own  land  and  age,  and  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  discuss  them  hereafter  in  rela- 
tion to  some  of  the  practical  questions  of  the  day. 
But  manifestly  this  classification  is  not  sufficiently 
fundamental  for  our  present  purpose.  We  need 
to  inquire  into  the  philosophical  principle  upon 
which  civil  society  is  founded.  Upon  what  basis 
of  authority  does  it  rest  ?  Is  the  authority  of  the 
State  inherent,  or  derived  ?  If  derived,  from 
whence  ?  and  how  ?  Is  the  State  a  moral  being,  — 
a  personality  ?  or  is  it  simply  a  social  compact,  an 
arrangement  or  organization  of  men,  maintained  in 
order  to  attain  the  ends  which  they  seek  to  secure 
through  such  government  or  society  ? 

1  Bishop  Warburton :  The  Alliance  between  Church  and  State,  chap, 
iv.  p.  41. 


*•]  To  Civil  Society. 


15 


Upon  the  two  answers  to  these  questions,  two 
antagonistic  theories  of  government  have  been 
founded.  The  first  of  these  would  make  the  State 
the  unit,  so  to  speak  ;  investing  it  with  original 
sovereignty  over  the  individual,  and  clothing  it 
with  the  authority  and  attributes  of  a  moral  per- 
sonality.1 The  other  makes  the  individual  man 
the  unit  ;  investing  him  with  original  sovereignty, 
declaring  that  he  only  has  the  authority  and  attri- 
butes of  a  moral  personality,  and  resolving  all 
civil  government  into  a  mere  compact  between 
men,  entered  into  and  maintained  for  certain 
common  purposes,  and  in  obedience  to  the  im- 
pulses of  their  common  nature.2  Now,  here  it  is 
to  be  remarked  in  passing,  that  the  question  is 
not  at  present  whether  government  is  or  is  not 
supported  by  a  divine  sanction.  It  is  one  of  the 
common  errors  of  this  controversy,  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  divine  sanction  of  human  government 

1  Gladstone  :  The  State  in  its  Relations  with  the  Church,  pp.  37,  38. 
Aristotle  :  Politics,  bk.  i.  chap.  ii.  Count  De  Maistre :  Du  Pape,  pp.  208, 
209,212,214.  Machiavelli:  II  Principe,  chap.  x.  Sir  Robert  Filmer : 
Patriarcha,  chap.  Hi.  pp.  yS,  141. 

2  Grotius :  De  Jure  Belli  et  Pacis,  I.  6,  et  seq.  Hobbes  :  Leviathan, 
chap.  xvii.  p.  153,  chap.  xxi.  p.  198.  Locke:  Of  Civil  Government, 
p.  383.  Rousseau  :  Du  Contrat  social,  i.  6.  Burke :  Reflections  on  the 
Revolution  in  France,  ii.  p.  368. 


1 6  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

should  be  supposed  to  depend  upon  the  definition 
of  the  philosophical  basis  of  civil  society.  The 
argument  in  favor  of  such  sanction  is  certainly 
not  less  strong  under  the  social-compact  hypoth- 
esis than  under  the  theocratic  hypothesis.  The 
only  question  at  present  is,  Which  is  the  unit, 
—  the  State,  or  the  individual  man  ?  Does  the 
authority  of  the  State  rest  upon  enactment,  or 
compact  ?  Is  civil  society  organized  from  the 
State  downward,  or  from  the  individual  up- 
ward ? 

The  first  of  the  views  indicated  above  has  been 
longest  and  most  widely  held  in  human  history. 
In  the  ancient  world  it  bore  almost  undisputed 
sway.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  all  absolute 
governments,  all  civic  theocracies,  all  despotisms, 
both  actual  and  theoretical,  have  rested  upon  its 
authority.  The  theory  that  man  exists  for  the 
State,  and  not  the  State  for  man,  was  not  more 
potent  and  unquestioned  in  the  "  practical  poli- 
tics "  of  Sparta  than  it  was  in  the  speculations  of 
Plato  in  the  "  Republic  "  and  "  Laws."  »  It  ruled 
in  the  Porch  and  the  Areopagus  at  Athens.  It 
justified  the  imperial  conquests  of  Alexander.     It 

1  Plato  :  Republic,  bk.  vi. ;  Laws,  bk.  v. 


i.]  To  Civil  Society.  ly 

was  acknowledged  at  Rome,  not  less  under  the 
Republic  than  under  the  Empire.1  From  that 
day  to  this  it  has  continued  to  be  the  basis  of  all 
the  pretensions  of  irresponsible  authority,  and  the 
divine  right  of  kings  ;  and  it  is  still  held  by  multi- 
tudes of  our  contemporaries,  and  even  of  our  own 
countrymen.2  Nevertheless,  the  other  theory, 
namely,  that  civil  society  rests  upon  a  social  com- 
pact between  individuals  ;  a  theory  that  regards 
the  man  as  first,  and  makes  the  government  his 
agent,  and  not  his  irresponsible  master ;  that  be- 
gins with  the  rights  of  men,  and  exalts  and  digni- 
fies the  individual,  —  this  theory,  though  late  in 
emerging  into,  history,  has  exercised  a  wide  and 
increasing  influence  in  human  affairs.  No  doubt 
the  perversion  of  it  has  more  than  once  intro- 
duced confusion  into  political  speculation. 3  No 
doubt  it  has  been  pleaded  again  and  yet  again  in 
justification  of  the  wildest  and  most  revolutionary 
projects.  Yet  properly  understood,  and  guarded 
by  limitations,  which  I  will  endeavor  in  these  in- 
quiries to  point  out,  there  is  no  doubt,  .  I   think, 

1  Lactantius  :  Institutiones  Divinae,  vi.  8. 

2  The  prevalence  and  tendency  of  this  theory  in  American  politics  will 
be  pointed  out  in  the  Third  Lecture. 

3  Rousseau  :  Du  Contrat  social,  i.  6. 


1 8  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

that  the  doctrine  of  compact  is    the    true   philo- 
sophical basis  of  civil  society. 

It  is  important  to  remember,  that  the  inquiry  in 
which  we  are  now  engaged  is  not  historical,  but 
metaphysical.  We  are  not  now  concerned  to 
ascertain  by  what  particular  steps  in  actual  his- 
tory any  particular  form  of  government  came  to 
be  adopted;  but  our  inquiry  is,  Upon  what  phil- 
osophical basis  of  authority  does  government  in 
general,  or  civil  society,  rest  ?  The  phenomenon 
to  be  accounted  for  is  civil  society ;  and  we  desire 
to  account  for  it,  not  empirically,  but  logically. 
The  question  really  is,  How  would  men  now,  or 
at  any  time,  proceed,  if  all  government  were  re- 
moved ?  upon  what  principle  would  they  necessa- 
rily and  logically  proceed  ?  It  may  be  perfectly 
true  that  actual  governments  have  been  histori- 
cally developed  from  patriarchical  or  despotic 
authority ;  yet,  even  in  the  case  of  such  govern- 
ments, the  only  rationale  of  their  logical  authority 
is  the  concept  of  a  compact  among  men  as  indi- 
viduals. Considered  logically  and  not  empirically, 
the  elaboration  of  civil  society  could  have  taken 
place  only  as  the  act  of  mutually  related  individ- 
uals   acting    as    moral    persons ;     and    the    only 


I.]  To  Civil  Society.  19 

moral  person  belonging  to  the  human  category  is 
the  individual  man.1  Considered  logically  and  not 
empirically,  then,  the  impulse  towards  civil  soci- 
ety must  begin  with  the  individual  man,  and  must 
derive  its  authority  immediately  from  him.  No 
other  philosophical  genesis  of  it  is  conceivable  on 
the  postulate  that  the  individual  man  is  the  only 
moral  person  belonging  to  the  human  category. 
The  affirmation  of  this  postulate  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  denial  of  it  on  the  other,  has  led  to  what 
may  be  justly  termed  the  most  notable  contro- 
versy in  the  whole  history  of  human  speculation. 
This  was  the  issue  that  was  involved  in  the  con- 
test between  institutionalism  and  particularism  in 
the  old  philosophies,  and  which  raged  in  the  fa- 
mous conflict  between  Nominalism  and  Realism 
in  the  Middle  Ages.  Long  before  Christianity, 
the  Platonic  theory  of  ideas,  and  the  idealism  of 
Aristotle,  laid  the  foundation  for  such  an  institu- 
tionalistic  philosophy  as  almost  excluded  the  no- 
tion of  the  responsibility  of  the  individual.  We 
shall  see  in  the  next  lecture  how  the   corrective 

1  Compare  Locke :  Of  Civil  Government,  chap.  viii.  Compare  also 
Sir  Henry  Sumner  Maine :  Early  History  of  Institutions,  lect.  xii.  pp.  354- 
37o. 


20  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

to  this,  which  the  Gospel  supplied,  was  neutralized 
in  large  degree  by  the  subordination  of  the 
Church  to  the  civil  power ;  and  when,  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages,  the  study  of  Aristotle  was  re-introduced 
into  Europe  by  and  through  the  Mahomedan 
doctors  of  Cordova,  the  School-authors  eagerly 
adopted  a  modified  type  of  the  old  idealism,  and 
built  up  their  famous  doctrine  of  Realism,  con- 
tending that  universals  were  the  only  realities, 
and  individuals  nothing  except  as  derived  from 
them.  Against  this  the  inevitable  re-action  ap- 
peared in  the  theory  of  Nominalism,  according 
to  which  individuals  are  the  only  realities,  and 
universals  but  the  figments  of  the  mind,  having 
no  objective  entity.  The  latest  and  most  bril- 
liant champion  of  Nominalism  was  William  of 
Occam,  an  Englishman,  who  won  the  battle  for 
his  theory  at  the  English  universities,  and  be- 
came the  father  of  English  liberty,  and  the 
philosophical  forerunner  of  the  Reformation.  It 
is  easy  to  see  how  nearly  related  this  scholastic 
controversy  was  to  the  political  questions  which 
have  since  agitated  the  world.  Looking  back 
upon  those  wordy  debates,  we  can  discern  a 
significance  in  them,  which,  perhaps,  the  pedan- 


i.]  To  Civil  Society.  21 

tic  disputants  themselves  little  understood. 
Though  the  postulate  of  Nominalism  has  been 
drafted  into  the  service  of  many  destructive 
tendencies,  and  needs,  as  we  shall  presently  see, 
to  be  limited  and  controlled,  yet  in  asserting  the 
dignity  of  the  individual  man,  and  declaring  that 
he  alone  is  a  moral  and  personal  entity  in  the 
human  category,  the  first  step  was  taken  towards 
the  formulation  of  a  true  philosophy  of  civil  soci- 
ety. Just  as  rapidly  as  this  truth  obtained  the 
mastery,  the  dignity  of  conscience  and  the  rights 
of  men  as  men  began  to  receive  their  due  ac- 
knowledgment and  recognition.  The  first  blow 
was  struck,  since  the  conversion  of  Constantino, 
against  despotism  of  all  kinds  when  it  was  ad- 
mitted that  man  is  greater  than  any  agent  that  he 
employs,  and  that  governments  were  made  for 
men  and  by  men,  and  not*men  by  governments 
and  for  them. 

The  philosophical  postulate  of  Nominalism, 
however,  needs  to  be  qualified.  Stated  without 
qualification,  it  leads,  no  doubt,  to  all  the  errors  of 
mere  individualism ;  but,  properly  stated,  those 
errors  are  guarded  against,  and,  indeed,  excluded. 
"  Nominalism  acknowledges  only  the  individual  as 


22  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect, 

the  truly  existing,  and  claims  that  the  universal  is 
but  an  abstraction  from  the  individual."  x  This 
conclusion  I  accept.  But,  then,  the  individual 
cannot  be  regarded  as  an  isolated  being,  but  must 
be  considered  as  a  member  of  a  class  or  genus 
composed  of  like  individuals.  In  other  words,  all 
individuals  are  distinguished  by  characteristics 
which  indicate  that  they  should  be  classified  into 
genera,  and,  in  the  case  of  man,  by  corresponding 
social  instincts,  which  move  them  to  so  group 
themselves  together  ;  and  it  is  only  in  this  asso- 
ciation that  the  individual  is  able  to  realize  his 
own  completeness.2  For  instance,  the  individual 
man  only  is  the  truly  existing ;  but  it  is  the  indi- 
vidual man  characterized  by  a  generic  likeness  to 
his  fellow-man,  and  by  a  strong  social  instinct, 
which  moves  him  to  associate  with  his  fellow-man, 
and  to  find  his  true  completeness  as  well  as  his 
highest  development  and  advantage  in  such  asso- 
ciation. With  this  qualification  we  may  freely 
apply  the  postulate  of  Nominalism  to  our  present 
purpose,  and  are  in  a  position  to  define  the  philo- 

1  Martensen  :  Christian  Ethics,  p.  211. 

2  Martensen:   Christian   Ethics,   p.  211.     Aristotle:    Politics,   bk.   i. 
chap.  ii. 


*•]  To  Civil  Society.  23 


sophical  basis  of  civil  society.  Civil  society,  then, 
rests  upon  a  social  compact  between  individual 
men  acting  in  obedience  to  a  law  of  their  being, 
and  under  the  impulses  of  their  common  nature. 
The  ethical  subject  in  this  compact  is  the  indi- 
vidual man  :  but  it  is  man  the  moral  and  spiritual 
being ;  man  made  in  the  image  of  his  Maker,  and, 
however  fallen,  still  the  object  of  divine  care ;  it  is 
man  distinguished  by  such  characteristics,  guided 
by  such  direction,  and  acting  under  that  impulse 
of  his  nature  which  moves  him  to  seek  his  highest 
good  in  association  with  his  fellows,  —  he  it  is 
who  makes  and  maintains  that  social  compact 
with  his  fellows  which  sustains  and  constitutes 
civil  society.  No  doubt,  some  of  the  motives  to 
such  association  are  derivable  from  mere  experi- 
ence ;  but  the  original  impulse  is  found  in  his 
own  nature.  For  man  is  essentially  a  social  and 
political,1  as  well  as  a  moral  and  intellectual,  being. 
There  is  a  law  of  his  nature  which  impels  him 
toward  political  society.  He  has  certain  well- 
defined  faculties  and  capacities  which  not  only 
seek,  but  depend,  for  their  highest  development, 
upon  association  with  his  fellows  :  and  while  the 

1  Aristotle  ;  Politics,  bk.  i.  chap.  ii. 


24  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

social  impulse  is  confirmed  and  justified  by  certain 
obvious  advantages  which  belong  exclusively  to 
such  association,  yet,  in  the  movement  toward 
society,  his  whole  nature  is  operative ;  and  he 
attains  the  highest  development  of  his  whole 
nature,  only  in  the  manifold  relations  of  such 
society.  There  is  a  sense,  indeed,  in  which  the 
individual  concedes  something  of  personal  liberty 
and  advantage  in  exchange  for  the  advantages 
which  accrue  to  him  from  his  social  compact  with 
his  fellows.  But  there  is  a  higher  sense,  in  which 
every  such  concession  not  only  secures  a  gain, 
but  is  in  itself  a  gain,  to  the  individual.1  The  obli- 
gation to  society,  then,  is  in  the  direction  of  the 
highest  development  of  the  individual ;  and  the 
tendencies  of  individual  progress  are  not  towards 
the  disintegration  of  civil  society,  but  towards  the 
better  establishing  and  perfecting  of  it.  Only 
let  it  be  freely  acknowledged,  that  the  basis  of 
civil  society  is  a  social  compact  between  men 
acting  as  free,  but  social  and  moral,  beings,  and 
we  reach  the  great  conclusions,  that  all  govern- 
ments derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed,  and  that  civil  society  becomes 

1  Rousseau  :  Du  Contrat  social,  pp.  6-8. 


L]  To  Civil  Society.  25 

more  and  more  authoritative  in  the  true  sense  of 
that  word,  and  more  and  more  secure,  as  men 
advance  in  the  development  and  appropriation  of 
civil  liberty. 

We  have  seen  that  the  controversy  between  the 
Realists  and  Nominalists  led  to  the  determination 
of  the  question  which  we  have  been  considering. 
We  need  not  be  surprised  at  finding,  however, 
that  the  relation  of  that  contest  to  civil  society 
was  not  apparent  to  the  civilians  and  doctors  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  that  the  theory  of  society  to 
which  it  conducted  was  not  formally  defined  till  a 
comparatively  recent  date.  For  it  has  always  been 
characteristic  of  political  economists,  that  they 
attempt  to  adjust  their  theories  to  existing  facts 
and  received  opinions  ;  and,  in  doing  this,  their 
theories  are  frequently  sacrificed.  The  existing 
facts  of  absolute  government,  both  in  Church  and 
State,  and  the  received  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
irresponsible  authority  of  such  government,  were 
too  formidable  to  be  attacked  by  the  ecclesiastical 
philosophers  of  the  Middle  Ages,  even  in  their 
speculations.  And  their  speculations  were  largely 
influenced  and  modified,  as  well  as  arrested,  by 
their  philosophical   traditions   and    their  political 


26  The  Relation  of  CJiristianity  [Lect. 

and  social  environment.  Hence  it  was  reserved 
for  a  civilian  and  jurisconsult  of  the  seventeenth 
century  to  be  the  first  to  apply  the  true  principle 
of  Nominalism  in  the  domain  of  politics.  To 
Hugo  Grotius  belongs  the  imperishable  honor  of 
having  first  defined  the  philosophic  basis  of  civil 
society.  In.  the  prolegomena  to  his  treatise,  "  De 
Jure  Belli  et  Pacis,"  which  he  composed  in  1625, 
he  declared  that  the  social  impulse  — "  societatis 
appetitns" — is  the  foundation  of  life  in  communi- 
ties, and  that  civil  society  is  that  state  into  which 
this  impulse,  acting  freely  and  unselfishly,  brings 
men  together.  It  is  significant  that  Aristotle  had 
long  before  defined  man  as  a  "political  animal,"  x 
but  he  failed  to  work  out  the  great  thought  which 
seems  to  have  been  present  to  his  mind.  He 
adopted  the  theory,  that  the  family  was  the  origin 
of  the  State,  —  a  theory  which  led  to  conclusions 
which  are  quite  inconsistent  with  the  received 
data  of  political  economy,  and  which  has  therefore 
been  abandoned  by  all  really  thoughtful  political 
philosophers.2      We   shall  have    occasion    in    the 

1  Aristotle :  Politics,  bk.  i.  chap.  ii. 

2  Luthardt :  Moral  Truths  of  Christianity,  p.  164.  Locke :  First 
Treatise  of  Government.  Sir  Henry  Sumner  Maine  :  Ancient  Law,  chap, 
v.  pp.  162,  163. 


i.]  To  Civil  Society.  27 

next  lecture  to  see  how  even  this  view  was  aban- 
doned in  the  interest  of  a  theocratic  absolutism, 
which  even  the  patriarchal  idea  of  government 
was  not  adequate  to  justify.  We  shall  also  see 
how  the  operation  of  the  great  principle  indicated 
by  Christ  was  suspended  for  long  centuries  of 
imperial  domination  and  ecclesiastical  tyranny, 
so  that  it  was  not  till  after  the  Reformation  that 
a  Dutch  civilian  in  exile  at  Paris  formulated  the 
true  doctrine  of  civil  liberty.  Like  all  great 
thoughts,  the  thought  of  Grotius  exhibited  a  mar- 
vellous fecundity.  The  English  philosopher 
Hobbes,  also  sometime  an  exile  like  Grotius, 
seized  the  formula  of  the  Dutch  jurisconsult,  and, 
under  the  influence  of  his  eccentric  genius,  worked 
it  out  into  the  grotesque  philosophy  which  has 
since  been  identified  with  his  name.1  Almost 
immediately  Spinoza  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
same  subject  the  finer  resources  of  his  subtle 
speculation.2  In  England,  Locke,  Warburton,  and 
Hoadley  ranged  themselves  on  the  same  side ; 
while  Sir  Robert  Filmer,  and  the  political  school 
which  he  founded,  as  earnestly  contended  against 

1  Hobbes :  De  Cive,  and  The  Leviathan. 

2  Spinoza :  Tractatus  Theologico-politicus,  chap.  xvi. 


28  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  new  doctrine,  sometimes  on  the  ground  that 
the  State  had  a  patriarchal  origin,  sometimes 
on  the  theocratic  postulate  of  the  divine  right  of 
kings.1  The  most  complete  elaboration  of  the 
social-compact  theory,  however,  was  made  by 
Rousseau  in  "Du  Contrat  social,"  published  in 
1761,  in  which  he  wrote  what  may  be  justly 
termed  the  first  great  philosophical  treatise  on 
civil  society.  His  misguided  genius,  however, 
continually  led  him  astray  ;  and,  through  his  eccen- 
tricities, the  great  principle  of  Grotius  has  been 
held  responsible  for  conclusions  not  justly  deriv- 
able from  it.  Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
principle  of  Grotius,  as  perverted  by  Rousseau,  led 
on  to  the  French  Revolution ;  while  the  same 
principle,  as  elaborated  by  Locke,  Hoadley,  and 
Warburton,  has  led  on  to  the  establishment  on 
these  shores  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

Let  us  now  briefly  indicate  one  or  two  conclu- 
sions from  the  foregoing  considerations.  The 
first  of  these  is,  that  governments  derive  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
So  far  as  civil  society  is  concerned,  the  will  of 
the  people  is  the  supreme  law.     The  doctrine  of 

1  Sir  Robert  Filmer :  Patriarcha. 


Ll  To  Civil  Society. 


29 


a  "higher  law,"  then,  has  no  place  in  a  true  phi- 
losophy of  civil  society.     This  doctrine,  which  has 
always  been  at  once  the  plea  of  fanaticism  and  the 
last  refuge  of  tyranny,  is  excluded  from  the  domain 
of  politics  by  the  theory  which  is  here  propounded. 
Nevertheless,  the  true  authority  of  government  is 
distinctly  guarded  by  the  principle,  that  men,  in 
forming   and  maintaining  the   social   compact   of 
civil  society,  are  acting  in  obedience  to  impulses 
that  must  control  them,  and  are  moving  towards 
the  perfection  of   their  being.      It  follows,  then, 
that  the  power  of   government  may  be  progres- 
sive along   the   line   of    social   development,   but 
that  this  progression  must  rest  on  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  and  must  be  further  controlled,  not 
only  by  the  will  of  the  body  politic,  but  also  by 
the  inalienable  right  which  every  soul  has  to  the 
highest  and  best  development  of  his  own  nature. 
There  are,  therefore,  certain  essential  limitations 
to  the  power  of  government,  which  are  interposed 
by  the  inalienable  rights  of  man  ;  «  and  there  may 
be  as  many  other  limitations  imposed  as  may  be 
enacted  by  the  popular  will,  provided  such  limita- 
tions do  not  work  the  destruction  of  civil  society. 

1  John  Stuart  Mill :  On  Liberty. 


30  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

Between  the  two  extremes  here  indicated,  there 
are  certain  debatable  questions,  such  as  the  func- 
tion of  government  in  the  matter  of  education 
and  in  the  administration  of  charity.  These  are 
hereafter  to  be  considered  by  us  in  connection 
with  our  principal  topic,  which  is,  The  Relation  of 
Christianity  to  Civil  Society. 

Before  passing  from  this  branch  of  our  subject, 
let  me  make  an  appeal, — first,  for  the  thoughtful 
consideration,  and  then  for  the  hearty  acceptance, 
of  this  theory  of  civil  society ;  and  this  because 
I  believe  it  to  be  the  true  theory,  and  because  I 
believe  it  to  be  the  theory  on  which  all  our  own 
civil  institutions  are  founded.  Too  often  and  too 
long  have  religious  men  maintained  a  certain  re- 
serve in  acknowledging  the  correctness  of  the 
principle  upon  which  the  whole  structure  of  our 
government  rests.  Because  of  this  reserve,  there 
is  a  widening  breach  between  the  teachers  of 
religion  and  the  leaders  of  political  affairs.  Reli- 
gion is  gravely  suspected  of  being  still  identified 
with  despotism,  because  religious  teachers  are  sup- 
posed to  be  constantly  appealing  to  a  "higher  law" 
in  the  domain  of  politics,  and  exhibiting  a  profound 
distrust  in  the  principles  of  popular  sovereignty. 


L]  To  Civil  Society.  31 

It  is  one  of  the  objects  of  these  lectures,  to  indi- 
cate that  popular  sovereignty,  organizing  itself  in 
civil  society,  and  in  obedience  to  the  best  and 
highest  impulses  of  man's  social  and  moral  nature, 
is  the  legitimate  outcome  of  the  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  that  it  is  only  under  the  social-com- 
pact theory,  properly  understood,  that  Christianity 
can  freely  act  as  the  conservative  of  civil  society. 
Having  now  defined  the  philosophic  basis  of 
civil  society,  it  only  remains,  that  we  should  like- 
wise define  Christianity  before  we  begin  to  con- 
sider the  relation  between  them.  The  true  theory 
of  Christianity  will  be  best  considered  in  the  next 
lecture,  in  the  course  of  what  I  shall  have  to  say 
of  Jesus  and  his  work.  Let  it  suffice  here  to  say, 
that  the  movement  by  which  Christianity  was 
formulated  was,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  opposite 
of  that  which  elaborated  civil  society.  The  latter 
began  with  the  individual ;  that  is,  from  below : 
the  former  began  from  above.  The  latter  rests 
upon  the  consent  of  men  :  the  former  rests  upon 
the  command  of  God.  The  latter  depends  upon 
a  social  compact  between  equals  :  the  former  de- 
pends on  loyalty  to  a  personal  law-giver  and  king. 
The    State,   or   civil    society,    is    not    theocratic 


32  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

in  any  sense.  The  Church  is  theocratic,  and  is 
the  only  theocracy.  This  contradistinction  con- 
stitutes the  essential  separateness  of  Church  and 
State,  and  renders  any  attempt  to  unite,  or  com- 
bine, or  formally  to  ally  them,  an  embarrassment 
and  a  profound  wrong  to  both.  Uncombined  and 
unallied,  left  free  to  act  and  re-act  on  each  other, 
the  relation  between  them  may  be  mutually  help- 
ful. The  moment  constraint  enters  into  this 
relation,  it  becomes  hurtful.  Here,  then,  are  our 
two  terms  of  relation,  —  a  theocratic  Church  which 
is  wholly  non-political,  and  a  social-compact  State 
which  is- wholly  secular.  The  bond  that  sustains 
the  one  is  personal  loyalty  to  a  living,  contemporary 
king  and  law-giver :  the  bond  that  sustains  the 
other  is  the  obligation  that  man,  as  a  social  and 
moral  being,  has  to  society.  The  authority  upon 
which  the  one  rests  is  the  enactment  and  institu- 
tion of  a  divine  founder.  The  authority  upon  which 
the  other  rests  is  the  will  of  the  people.  The 
point  of  contact  between  the  two  is  the  individual 
man.  If  man  is  a  political  being  by  nature,  all 
his  social  and  civil  instincts  are  expanded,  trans- 
formed, rectified,  enlarged,  by  the  influence  of 
Christianity,     Under  its  operation    the   societatis 


L]  To  Civil  Society.  33 

appetitus  is  transformed  and  expanded  into  broth- 
erly love.  The  social  compact  is  re-enforced  by 
the  characteristic  Christian  principle  of  the  broth- 
erhood of  the  human  race.  By  Christianity  a 
moral  motive-power  is  supplied,  which  is  far  better 
than  any  mere  pact  or  enactment  in  keeping 
society  together;  and  that  is,  the  charity  that  is 
not  easily  provoked,  the  love  that  works  no  ill 
to  his  neighbor.  To  the  motives  which  tend  to 
insure  well-being  in  this  world,  it  adds  the  loftier 
hopes,  the  nobler  aspirations,  the  better  purposes, 
that  bind  the  Christian  man  to  an  endless  future. 
It  helps  him  to  be  a  better  citizen  of  this  world, 
in  teaching  him  that  he  has  a  citizenship  in 
heaven.  Christianity  presides  at  the  source  and 
in  the  sanctuary  of  civil  life.  Through  the  indi- 
vidual conscience,  the  individual  intelligence,  the 
individual  affections,  —  as  these  are  the  objects 
of  divine  grace,  and  then  become  the  subjects  of 
social  and  political  power,  —  through  these  ave- 
nues, the  living  Christ  is  to-day  operating  upon 
civil  society,  and  is  showing  himself  more  and 
more  to  be  the  Leader  of  civilization  and  the 
Ruler  of  the  world. 


LECTURE  II. 

THE  ANSWER   OF   CHRIST,  AND   THE   DEVEL- 
OPMENTS   OF   EUROPEAN   HISTORY. 


; 


LECTURE   II. 

THE   ANSWER  OF   CHRIST,    AND    THE     DEVELOPMENTS 
OF   EUROPEAN    HISTORY. 

"  But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness,  and  said,  Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye 
hypocrites?  Shew  me  the  tribute  money.  And  they  brought  unto  him  a 
penny.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Whose  is  this  image  and  superscription  ? 
They  say  unto  him,  Caesar's.  Then  saith  he  unto  them,  Render  therefore 
unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's ;  and  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God's."  —  St.  Matthew  xxii.  18-21. 

TT  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that  the  pur- 
■*■  pose  of  the  Pharisees,  in  sending  their  disci- 
ples with  the  Herodians  to  Jesus,  was,  to  betray 
him  into  one  of  two  alternative  dangers  in  defin- 
ing his  attitude  towards  the  Roman  civil  au- 
thority. The  craftiness  with  which  their  ques- 
tion was  put  was  worthy  of  the  deep-laid  plan  out 
of  which  it  proceeded.  The  inquirers  came  to 
Jesus  as  to  a  Master  in  Israel,  one  who  taught 
the  way  of  God  in  truth,  as  though  they  would 
refer  to  him  the  settlement  of  a  pending  dispute. 
There  was  a  subtle  attempt  at  flattery,  moreover, 
in  their  allusion  to  his  conspicuous  and  manly  in- 

37 


38  The  Relation  of  Christianity.  [lect. 

dependence,  —  his  freedom  from  all  kinds  of  social 
and  political  obsequiousness,  —  "  Thou  regardest 
not  the  person  of  men."  They  appealed  to  him, 
therefore,  for  an  authoritative  and  out-spoken  dec- 
laration, either  for  or  against  the  lawfulness  of  a 
certain  tribute,  or  tax,  levied  by  Caesar ;  believing 
that  his  answer,  whether  affirmative  or  negative, 
would  serve  their  purpose  of  hostility  to  him.  A 
brief  consideration  of  the  political  and  religious 
antagonisms  of  the  time  will  show  that  their  ex- 
pectation was  well  founded.  To  the  orthodox  and 
patriotic  Jews,  the  levying  of  this  capitation-tax 
was  doubly  odious,  not  only  as  a  burdensome  ex- 
action, but  also  as  the  badge  of  the  subjection  of 
the  chosen  people  of  God  to  a  detested  and  des- 
potic Gentile  power.  The  religious  and  patriotic 
zeal  of  all  the  more  respectable  and  devout  was 
aroused  into  fierce  opposition  to  this  sacrilegious 
spoliation  of  the  heritage  of  Jehovah.  The  coarse 
and  brutal  Roman  procurator,  whose  office  had 
special  regard  to  the  supervision  of  the  revenue, 
had  made  this  tax  still  more  hateful  by  his  con- 
temptuous disdain  of  the  scruples  of  the  Jews.  Of 
all  the  Jews,  the  Galileans  were  conspicuous  for 
their  patriotic  opposition  to  the  despotism  under 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society.  39 

which  the  nation  groaned  ;  and  it  was  not  forgot- 
ten that  Jesus  belonged  to  Galilee.  In  the  sa- 
cred precincts  of  the  temple  itself,  within  whose 
courts  they  were  then  standing,  the  Roman  gov- 
ernor had  not  scrupled  to  slay  Galilean  worship- 
pers, even  at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  and  to  mingle 
their  blood  with  the  daily  sacrifice.  If,  then, 
Jesus  should  answer  affirmatively  that  it  was  law- 
ful and  right  to  pay  this  hated  tribute,  and  so 
range  himself  on  the  side  of  the  bloody  tyrant, 
there  would  be  an  end  of  all  his  influence  with  his 
countrymen.  Such  an  answer  would,  in  their  esti- 
mation, effectually  dispose  of  all  his  pretensions 
to  the  Messiahship  of  the  Jews.  But  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  should  declare,  as  a  public  and  in- 
fluential teacher,  that  it  was  not  lawful  and  right 
to  pay  the  tax,  there  were  the  Herodians  ready  to 
take  the  news  of  his  treasonable  utterance  to  the 
truculent  Roman  governor,  who  would  surely 
make  short  work  with  any  popular  leader  of 
whom  they  could  say,  "  We  have  found  him  per- 
verting the  nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute 
to  Caesar."  l 

The  exact  position  of  the  Herodians  in  regard 

1  St.  Luke  xxiii.  2. 


40  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

to  this  and  kindred  subjects  is  involved  in  much 
obscurity.  In  attempting  to  ascertain  their  polit- 
ical opinions,  we  have  little  more  than  their  name 
to  guide  us.  This  would  seem  to  indicate,  that  as 
the  partisans  of  Herod,  who  was  an  Idumaean  in 
race,  a  Jew  by  conversion,  and  a  satrap  of  the 
Roman  emperor  by  appointment,  they  were  the 
native  upholders  of  the  imperial  authority,  as 
represented  by  the  petty  prince  from  whom  their 
name  was  derived.  At  all  events,  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that  they  were  ready  to  report  any  trea- 
sonable utterance  of  the  Galilean  Prophet  to  the 
Roman  authorities.  To  such  men  it  was  sure  to 
be  both  a  congenial  and  a  gainful  vocation,  to  spy 
out  treason,  and  hunt  down  the  disaffected ;  and 
it  was  in  order  to  this  that  they  were  now  joined 
in  ill-omened  alliance  with  the  Pharisees.  The 
Herodians,  then,  are  to  be  considered,  whatever 
their  own  political  and  religious  opinions,  as  the 
representatives  on  this  occasion  of  that  imperial 
policy  to  which  it  was  supposed  that  the  utter- 
ances of  Jesus  might  be  obnoxious,  and  to  the 
resentment  of  which  it  was  their  purpose  to 
betray  him.  Pontius  Pilate,  the  vicegerent  of 
such  imperialism,  was  quartered  at  that  moment 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  41 

in  his  official  apartments  in  the  palace  of  Herod. 
Within  a  few  feet  of  where  they  stood  were  the 
stairs  which  connected  the  cloisters  of  the  temple 
with  the  Tower  of  Antonia,  from  which  the  Roman 
guards  overlooked  the  sacred  enclosure.  Jesus 
and  his  questioners  were  standing,  then,  within 
the  very  shadow,  so  to  speak,  of  that  overbearing 
and  remorseless  imperialism,  which  demanded, 
not  only  tribute,  but  homage,  and  even  worship. 
For  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Roman 
theory  of  government  was  not  less  theocratic  and 
exacting  in  its  way  than  was  the  theory  of  the 
Jews.  Though  Rome,  as  a  matter  of  wise  policy, 
did  not  ordinarily  interfere  with  the  religions  of 
conquered  peoples,  yet  she  always  assumed  the 
right  to  regulate  them ;  and,  even  in  enrolling 
them  as  religiones  licetce,  she  assumed  and  exer- 
cised what  we  would  call  a  spiritual  jurisdiction 
over  the  religions  of  the  world.  Nor  was  this  all. 
The  authority  of  the  Roman  State  had  always 
been  supposed  to  rest  on  no  popular  right,  but  on 
a  right  assumed  to  be  divine.1  With  Julius  and 
Augustus  Caesar  this  theory  was  embodied  in  the 
cultus  of  the  imperium  divum.     The  poet  Virgil 

1  James  Bryce,  D.C.L. :  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  20. 


42  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

taught  the  Roman  world  to  salute  the  young 
Augustus  as  the  divine  boy  who  descended  from 
the  skies  to  institute  on  earth  the  reign  of  Jove.1 
From  that  time  the  person  of  the  Caesar  was 
sacred.  To  him  or  to  his  Genius  temples  were 
erected,  and  divine  honors  paid,  even  while  he 
was  alive.2  It  soon  came  to  be  proclaimed,  wher- 
ever the  Roman  eagles  were  displayed,  that  Caesar 
was  a  god.  In  that  weary  and  despairing  age, 
amid  the  multitude  of  subjugated  deities,  the  idea 
was  not  slow  of  acceptance,  that  there  was  one 
god,  at  least,  whose  power  was  no  delusion,  who 
could  punish  and  reward,  who  could  build  up  and 
destroy,  —  and  that  god  was  Caesar.  To  acknowl- 
edge his  divineness  came  to  be  the  characteristic 
religion  of  the  empire,  and  the  worship  of  him 
was  soon  identified  with  loyalty.  Victorious  gen- 
erals and  imperial  deputies,  like  the  younger 
Pliny  in  a  later  age,  made  the  yielding  of  divine 
honors  to  the  emperor,  the  doing  sacrifice  to  the 
statue  of  the  Caesar,  a  test,  both  of  loyalty  and  of 
fitness  to  live.3    There  is  strong  ground  for  believ- 

1  Virgil  :  Georgics,  i.  24 ;  iv.  560. 

2  Bryce:  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  23.     Horace:  Odes,  iii.  3,  11. 
Ovid:  Epistolarum  ex  Ponto,  iv.  9,  105.     Tacitus:  Annales,  i.  75;  iii.  38. 

3  Robertson :  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  18. 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  43 

ing  that  Pilate  himself  was  prepared  to  impose 
this  cult  upon  the  subject-people  over  whom  he 
was  placed.  When  he  removed  his  headquarters 
from  Caesarea  to  Jerusalem,  he  introduced  the  im- 
perial standards  bearing  the  image  of  the  Caesar 
into  the  Holy  City  ;  though  he  was  compelled  to  do 
so  by  night,  and  in  contemptuous  defiance  of  the 
repeated  and  impassioned  entreaties  of  the  Jews. 
On  another  occasion  he  persisted  in  a  similar 
policy  in  spite  of  tumult  and  insurrection,  till  an 
order  from  the  emperor  himself  restrained  the 
zeal  of  this  too  religious  governor.1  Upon  the 
theory  of  Pilate,  therefore,  and  of  the  Herodians, 
who  on  this  occasion,  at  least,  were  the  representa- 
tives of  his  opinions,  the  paying  of  tribute  was 
due  to  Caesar  as  an  act  of  loyalty  and  homage, 
and  as  the  acknowledgment  of  his  divine  author- 
ity.  Because  the  Caesar  was  divine,  he  was  en- 
titled to  the  allegiance  and  the  tribute  of  all  the 
peoples  of  the  earth  ;  and  loyalty  to  Roman  power 
meant  the  acknowledgment,  not  merely  of  the 
wisdom  of  Roman  laws  and  the  might  of  Roman 
arms,  but  the  divineness  of  the  imperial  god.2 

1  Philo  Judaeus  :  Ad  Caium,  30,  31,  45,  46. 

2  Bryce :  Holy  Roman  Empire,  pp.  5,  6. 


44  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

With  ready  insight  Jesus  perceived  the  crafti- 
ness of  his  questioners,  and  the  danger  into  which 
they  would  betray  him.  But,  from  his  stand-point, 
the  answer  was  obvious  which  would  astonish  and 
confound  them.  He  called  for  the  Roman  coin  in 
which  the  imperial  tax  was  required  to  be  paid. 
"Shew  me  the  tribute  money."  They  placed  a 
Roman  denarius  in  his  hands.  From  coins  of  the 
same  mintage  still  extant,  we  are  able  to  under- 
stand the  exact  force  of  what  he  said.  "On  one 
side  were  stamped  the  haughty,  beautiful  features 
of  the  Emperor  Tiberius,  with  all  the  wicked 
scorn  upon  the  lip ;  on  the  obverse  his  title  of 
Pontifcx  Maximus"  l  To  the  Pharisee,  as  I  have 
said,  the  payment  of  this  tribute  was  altogether 
odious,  as  the  evidence  of  a  political  servitude 
which  his  soul  abhorred  ;  and  the  coin  itself  was 
to  him  an  abominable  thing,  with  an  idolatrous 
image  thereon,  that  suggested  the  pontifical 
supremacy  of  a  Gentile  despot,  instead  of  the  sole 
headship  of  Jehovah.  To  the  Pharisee,  therefore, 
this  tribute  was  sacrilege.  To  the  Roman,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was   simple  loyalty  to  one  whose 

1  Canon  Farrar  :  The  Life  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  231.  Compare  Bryce's 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  23. 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  45 

power  was  irresistible  because  his  authority  was 
divine.  The  answer  of  Jesus,  to  the  utter  amaze- 
ment of  his  questioners,  took  sides  with  neither  of 
these  alternative  theories.  He  occupied  a  stand- 
point altogether  different  from  theirs,  —  a  stand- 
point not  before  occupied  by  any  teacher.  His 
answer,  therefore,  perplexed  and  confounded  them  ; 
so  that  "they  marvelled  and  left  him,  and  went 
their  way."  To  him  the  paying  of  this  tribute 
was  not  at  all  what  it  seemed  to  either  party  of  his 
questioners  to  be.  In  his  estimation  the  denarius 
was  simply  the  current  coin  of  the  realm,  the 
symbol,  both  of  commercial  value,  and  of  an  ac- 
knowledged political  and  commercial  obligation  to 
contribute  to  the  maintenance  of  the  existing  civil 
society, — nothing  more.  The  fact  that  the  coin 
was  current,  and  had  been  struck  at  Caesar's  mint, 
was  conclusive  evidence  that  the  imperial  govern- 
ment was  the  acknowledged  civil  power.  Give 
back,  then,  to  Caesar,  he  said,  the  tribute  which 
the  very  currency  of  this  coin  proves  that  you 
have  acknowledged  yourselves  bound  to  give,  but 
render  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's.  And, 
saying  this,  he  said  implicitly  to  both  Pharisee  and 
Herodian,  The  payment  of  this  tribute  has  not  the 


46  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

significance  that  you  attach  to  it,  nor  is  civil 
society  what  you  suppose  it  to  be.  Civil  govern- 
ment is  not  theocratic  in  either  the  Jewish  or  the 
Roman  sense,  and  the  payment  of  a  tax  to  it  does 
not  ascribe  to  it  such  a  character.  Religious 
scruples,  then,  and  religious  partisanship,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  matter.  The  payment  of 
tribute  to  Caesar  is  simply  a  political  obligation, 
acknowledged  to  be  binding  by  the  very  currency 
of  this  coin  which  you  have  received  from  his 
mint ;  but  it  is  in  no  sense  an  act  of  religious 
homage.  To  give  tribute  to  Caesar  is  a  duty,  yes ; 
but  it  is  a  political  duty.  Man's  religious  duty, 
the  homage  of  his  soul,  is  due  only  to  his  God. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  Jesus  occupied  a  new 
stand-point  in  politics,  and  defined  a  new  relation 
between  religion  and  civil  society.  It  is  impor- 
tant, therefore,  that  we  should  attentively  consider 
what  his  point  of  view  was,  and  by  what  steps  he 
reached  it,  —  all  the  more  important,  because,  for 
reasons  which  are  hereafter  to  be  given,  the  posi- 
tion which  he  assumed  was  abandoned  by  his 
Church,  and  has  yet  to  be  regained  in  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  Christendom.  It  must  be  obvious 
that  nothing  more  than  a  mere  outline-sketch  can 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  47 

be  here  attempted  of  what  has  been  termed  the 
"plan  "  of  Jesus ;  yet  his  plan  is  distinguished  by- 
such  simplicity  and  consistency,  and  is  so  easily 
discernible  in  the  authentic  records  of  his  earthly 
life  and  teaching,  that  a  mere  outline  will  suffice 
to  define  it.  His  plan,  then,  was  to  set  up  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  the  world,  of  which  kingdom 
he,  as  God,  was  to  be  the  head  and  king;  to 
establish  the  true  theocracy,  of  which  the  elder 
theocracy  of  the  Jews  was  but  the  type  and  prepa- 
ration. He  designed,  moreover,  that  such  theoc- 
racy should  be  wholly  distinct  from  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world.  In  a  word,  he  decreed  the  total 
separation  of  Church  and  State;  designing,  that 
neither  in  alliance  nor  in  antagonism,  but  through 
the  conscience  and  the  moral  nature  of  the  indi- 
vidual man,  there  should  be  established  the  only 
relation  between  Christianity  and  civil  society. 

Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  Jesus  as- 
sumed to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  the  Prince 
of  the  house  of  David,  whose  mission  was,  to 
build  up  the  long-expected  kingdom  of  God.  The 
prophetic  announcement  which  proclaimed  his 
coming  was  repeated  in  the  first  utterance  of  his 
own  ministry,  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand." 


48  The  Rclatio7i  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

To  the  Jews  this  announcement  seemed  to  have 
a  definite  meaning.  It  seemed  to  them  to  pro- 
claim the  immediate  restoration  of  the  old  theoc- 
racy, the  re-assertion  of  the  autonomy  of  the 
chosen  people,  the  throwing-off  the  yoke  of  a  for- 
eign oppressor,  the  restoration  of  royalty  to  the 
house  of  David.  But  Jesus  intended  both  less 
and  more :  he  intended,  indeed,  to  set  up  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  to  assume,  in  virtue  of  his 
own  divine  royalty,  the  headship  thereof ;  he  in- 
tended to  establish  the  true  theocracy,  which 
prophets  had  foretold ;  but,  in  order  to  this,  he 
intended  to  separate  his  kingdom  from  every 
thing  that  was  local,  partial,  preparatory ;  he  in- 
tended to  make  it  a  universal  and  everlasting 
kingdom,  belonging  to  both  worlds,  the  seen  and 
the  unseen,  to  time  and  eternity ;  and  therefore 
he  intended  to  dissociate  it  from  the  kingdoms  of 
this  world. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  in  what  respects  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  surpassed  the  elder  theocracy,  even 
in  its  best  days.  In  accordance  with  the  divine 
method,  as  revealed  to  us  in  all  history,  the  elder 
dispensation  was  limited  by  the  conditions  of 
development  and  progress   to  which   it  was   ad- 


To  Civil  Society.  49 


justed.     The  time  had   not   yet   come  when    the 
tribal  instinct  could  be  set  aside.     The  most  that 
could  be  done  was,  to  expand  it  into  the  larger 
instinct  of  national  life.     Nor  had  the  time  yet 
come  when  the  civil  as  distinguished  from   the 
ecclesiastical  instinct  could  be  altogether  trusted 
to  organize  the  people.     Therefore   the   religious 
and  ecclesiastical  organization  of  Israel  was  made 
to  take  the  place  of   civil  society.     With  all   its 
changes  and  modifications,  however,  it  is  evident 
that    the   elder   dispensation    was   partly   typical, 
partly  special,  and  partly  preparatory,  and  that  it 
was  not  intended  to  be  perpetuated  in  all  its  de- 
tails in  the  new  dispensation,  which  was  to  fulfil 
it.     With  divine  insight,  therefore,  Jesus  resolved 
to  revive  the  theocracy  in  its  ideal,  that  is  to  say, 
in  its  permanent  and    universal,  form;    and   this 
involved  the  disconnecting  of  it,  both  in  idea  and 
form,  from  what  was  local,  temporal,  transitory. 

The  purpose,  then,  of  Jesus,  to  establish  a  uni- 
versal and  everlasting  kingdom,  of  which  he  him- 
self, in  virtue  of  his  divine  royalty,  should  be  king, 
involved  on  his  part  the  utter  renunciation  of  all 
temporal  and  civil  authority.  It  was  not  merely 
because  he  determined  to  found  his  kingdom  on 


50  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  law  of  self-sacrifice,  and  not  on  force,  —  to 
make  love,  and  not  coercion,  its  principle  of  cohe- 
sion,—  that  he  renounced  the  temporal  sover- 
eignty of  the  kingdoms  of  this  world ;  but  it  was 
also  because  the  two  kinds  of  sovereignty,  the 
temporal  and  the  spiritual,  were  incompatible,  and 
could  not  be  united  without  injury  to  both.  The 
issue  was  distinctly  presented  to  him  in  his  temp- 
tation, and  was  then  definitely  settled.  From  the 
great  decision  which  he  then  made,  he  never 
wavered.  He  saw,  that  for  him,  with  his  divine 
ideals  and  everlasting  purpose,  to  undertake  the 
headship  of  this  world's  kingdoms  would  be  to 
renounce  his  divine  mission.  From  the  first, 
therefore,  he  never  dallied  with  the  thought  of 
earthly  sovereignty.  Once,  when  called  upon  to 
exercise  the  judicial  function,  which  the  Jews 
naturally  expected  him,  both  as  Messiah  and 
Prophet,  to  undertake,  he  distinctly  declined  such 
a  function,  saying,  "  Man,  who  made  me  a  judge 
or  a  divider  over  you  ? "  So,  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  he  refused  to  exercise  any  of  the  official 
functions  of  civic  life  quite  as  persistently  as  he 
refused  to  appeal  to  force,  or  to  lean  on  the  sword 
of  the  military  power.     So  also,  and  notably  in 


To  Civil  Society.  51 


our  text,  he  referred  the  determination  of  the 
civic  duty  of  his  questioners  to  the  terms  of  the 
social  compact  under  which  they  lived,  pointing 
to  the  mintage  of  the  coin  which  they  themselves 
had  already  accepted  as  current,  to  indicate  the 
obligations  of  their  political  citizenship,  and  con- 
fining his  own  dogmatic  utterance  of  what  their 
duty  was  to  the  obligation  which  they  owed,  not 
to  Caesar,  but  to  God.  So,  finally,  when  ar- 
raigned before  Pilate  on  the  charge  of  claiming  to 
be  a  king,  he  solemnly  reiterated  the  claim,  but 
denied  the  accusation  of  his  accusers  by  declaring 
that  his  "kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."  To  the 
Roman  such  a  claim  was  unintelligible.  To  his 
Jewish  accusers,  while  it  denied  the  charge  which 
they  formally  made,  it  confessed  the  real  griev- 
ance which  they  had  against  him.  It  was  not  that 
he  claimed  to  be  a  king ;  it  was  not  even  that  he 
claimed  to  be  a  king  by  divine  right,  and  as  the 
Son  of  God,  that  constituted  the  real  fault  which 
they  found  in  him,  —  but  it  was  because,  while  he 
claimed  to  be  a  king,  he  refused  to  exercise  a 
temporal  sovereignty.  It  was  precisely  because 
his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  and  because 
he  would  not  summon  his  servants  to  fight,  and  so 


52  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

to  smite  their  heathen  oppressors  hip  and  thigh, 
that  the  Jews  rejected  his  Messiahship,  and 
delivered  him  up  to  die.  I 

Reflection  upon  the  nature  of  the  kingdom 
which  Jesus  did  set  up,  and  upon  the  philosophi- 
cal basis  of  civil  society,  confirms  the  view  here 
taken  of  the  essential  incompatibility  of  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  power.  From  the  point  of  view 
which  we  have  already  reached,  it  seems  too  evi- 
dent to  require  further  argument,  that  the  Founder 
of  Christianity  designed  that  his  Church  should 
be  forever  separate  from  the  civil  State.  The 
Church  was  instituted  as  a  universal  and  enduring 
theocracy,  of  which  Jesus  himself  was  the  head 
and  king.  Membership  in  his  Church,  he  decreed, 
should  depend  on  faith  and  grace, — faith  in  the 
recipient,  and  grace  from  himself,  the  giver,  — and 
should  consist  in  personal  loyalty  to  himself  as  a 
living  king,  which  loyalty  was  to  be  sustained, 
not  only  in  the  obedience  of  discipleship,  but  in 
personal  communion  with  him  in  sacrament  and 
prayer.  This  kingdom  was  to  be  fixed,  unvarying, 
universal;  having  an  "order"  that  could  not  be 
altered,  and  a  "faith"  that  could  not  be  changed: 
because    such  order  was  instituted  by  the  Law- 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society.  53 

giver  himself,  who  also  delivered  "the  faith  once 
for  all "  to  his  disciples.  Civil  society,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  not  instituted  by  the  supreme  Law-giver, 
nor  was  any  institute  of  civil  polity  enacted  by 
him.  It  is  not  pretended  by  any  that  the  Founder 
of  Christianity  undertook  in  any  sense  to  constitute 
a  State,  though  undoubtedly  he  did  constitute  a 
Church.  While,  therefore,  the  basis  of  Christian- 
ity is  altogether  theocratic,  the  only  philosophical 
basis  of  civil  society  is  found,  in  the  absence  of 
any  enactment  and  institution  thereof,  to  be  a 
social  compact  between  individual  men,  acting  in 
accordance  with  the  moral  and  social  impulses  of 
their  nature.  The  very  fact,  then,  that  Jesus  did 
constitute  his  Church,  making  it  theocratic,  but 
did  not  constitute  the  State,  leaving  it  to  be  orga- 
nized or  elaborated  by  the  impulses  towards  soci- 
ety, which  already  existed  in  human  nature,  is  in 
itself  conclusive  proof,  that,  in  his  design,  the 
Church  was  to  be  distinct  and  separate  from  the 
civil  power. 

But  the  argument  can  be  pushed  a  step  farther. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  that,  while  Jesus  designed 
that  his  kingdom  should  not  interfere  with  the 
functions  of  civil  society,  he   not   only  refrained 


54  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lbct. 

from  recognizing  the  State  as  a  corresponding 
theocracy,  but  he  designed  that  the  old  claim  of 
divine  right  or  theocratic  authority  on  the  part 
of  the  State  should  be  eventually  overthrown, 
and  that  civil  society  should  rest  on  a  secular  and 
social  compact  between  men  as  men.  It  is  not 
more  certain  that  he  intended  that  the  Church 
should  be  a  theocracy  than  that  he  intended  that 
the  State  should  rest  its  claim  to  authority  simply 
on  the  consent  of  the  governed :  but,  in  the  case 
of  the  Church,  he  enacted  his  purpose  in  its  very 
constitution ;  while,  in  the  case  of  the  State,  he 
simply  set  a  principle  in  operation  that  would 
eventually  work  out  his  design.  While  Jesus,  in 
establishing  his  kingdom  in  virtue  of  his  own  di- 
vine royalty,  demanded  the  allegiance  and  loyalty 
of  his  disciples,  yet,  in  the  very  act  of  doing  this 
of  divine  right,  he  inaugurated  a  principle  that 
would  eventually  make  a  similar  claim  on  the  part 
of  any  earthly  kingdom  impossible.  For  in  mak- 
ing personal  repentance,  personal  faith,  and  the 
gift  of  personal  grace,  the  condition  of  member- 
ship in  his  kingdom,  he  emancipated  the  individ- 
ual man,  and  declared  the  individual,  and  not  the 
tribe,  the  nation,  or  the  race,  to  be   the   ethical 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society.  55 

subject.  Before  that  time,  at  least  among  the 
Gentile  nations,  the  individual  man  had  been  as 
nothing.  Under  the  old  theory  of  government,  he 
had  simply  been  an  undivided  and  unconsidered 
part  of  the  State.  His  dignity,  if  any  he  had,  was 
measured  by  the  accident  of  birth,  or  of  wealth,  or 
of  achievement.  All  except  the  few  so  distin- 
guished were  the  "profanum  vulgns"  without  in- 
dividuality and  without  rights.  Nothing  in  all 
history  is  so  pathetic  as  the  unlegendary  insig- 
nificance of  the  masses  of  mankind  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era.  When  to  the  burden 
of  external  oppression  we  add  the  consideration  of 
the  dumb,  hopeless  misery  which  belonged  to  the 
complete  obliteration  of  all  individuality,  the  utter 
extermination  of  all  personal  dignity  and  self-re- 
spect wrought  by  the  civil  and  military  tyrannies 
of  that  time,  we  gain  an  idea,  not  otherwise  at- 
tainable, of  the  utter  wretchedness  of  that  ancient 
world.  In  such  a  state  of  things,  the  acceptance 
of  Christianity  was  a  wakening  from  the  dead,  — 
a  personal  emancipation.  By  it,  for  the  first  time 
in  long,  dreary  ages,  the  masses  of  mankind  were 
individualized.  The  first  startling  note  of  the 
gospel,  in  convicting  the  hearer  of  sin,  awakened 


56  The  Rclatio7i  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

in  him,  for  the  first  time  perhaps,  the  sense  of  in- 
dividual responsibility :  and  with  the  sense  of 
pardon  came  the  sublime  sense  of  sonship  to 
quicken  and  crown  his  wondering  soul  ;  for  it 
was  the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of  Christianity, 
that  it  dealt,  not  with  men  in  the  mass,  but  with 
men  as  individuals.  It  taught  the  great  truth, 
that  the  individual  alone  is  the  ethical  subject.  It 
denounced  its  penalties,  and  promised  its  gracious 
rewards  to  the  individual  soul ;  and,  in  thus  resolv- 
ing humanity  into  individuals,  it  set  in  motion  a 
principle  which  was  sure  eventually  to  work  man's 
political  emancipation.  It  is  impossible  to  exag- 
gerate—  it  is  often  difficult  for  us  to  understand 
—  the  elevating  force  of  the  gospel  when  it  was 
first  preached  in  the  Roman  empire.  The  poor, 
the  outcast,  the  oppressed,  became  conscious  of  a 
dignity  and  a  self-determining  power  that  made 
their  life,  even  in  this  world,  altogether  different 
from  what  it  before  had  been.  He  who  had  won 
citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of  God  could  not  be 
in  real  subjection  to  any  man.  Constantly,  there- 
fore, and  silently,  the  gospel  in  the  apostolic  age 
was  working  emancipation,  and  was  undermining 
the  old  basis  of  authority  on  which  the  despotism 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society.  57 

of  the  Roman  Government  rested.  And  herein 
arose  a  danger  to  Christianity  itself,  that  the 
apostles  were  not  slow  to  discover,  and  to  warn 
the  faithful  against.  The  emancipation  of  the 
Christian  was  not  intended  to  be  a  violent  one. 
In  no  case  was  it  intended  to  work  or  encourage 
social  or  political  insubordination.  It  was  not 
designed  to  discredit  government  or  social  order. 
Nay,  it  was  not  designed  to  deny,  but  rather  to 
insist  upon,  the  divine  sanction  of  all  such  govern- 
ments as  should  be  actually  established  until  bet- 
ter should  be  compassed  in  the  natural  and  regular 
way.  Even  heathen  governments  were  of  divine 
sanction,  not  in  the  sense  of  having  been  insti- 
tuted by  God,  but  in  4he  sense  of  resting  for  their 
true  authority  upon  a  compact  or  consent  which 
was  the  outcome  of  social  impulses  implanted  by 
God  in  human  nature,  and  of  serving  purposes 
approved  by  God;  and  the  apostolic  injunction 
was,  therefore,  both  timely  and  right,  that  "  every 
soul  should  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers. 
For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God  :  the  powers 
that  be  are  ordained  of  God."1  "  Wherefore  ye 
must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also 

1  Romans  xiii.  i. 


58  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

for  conscience  sake."  *  The  emancipation  offered 
by  the  gospel,  then,  was  perfectly  compatible  with 
obedience  to  constituted  authority.  It  was  fai 
more  complete  and  profound  than  any  that  mere 
insubordination  or  revolution  could  effect.  It 
completely  changed  the  recognized  basis  of  au- 
thority in  civil  society.  It  revealed  to  man,  that 
civil  government  rested  on  no  higher  authority 
than  the  individual  consent  and  the  individual 
conscience,  and  that  these  are  a  sufficient  basis 
for  it  to  rest  on  ;  and  that,  in  being  subject  for 
conscience'  sake,  man  could  still  be  free  under 
any  civil  goverment,  ay,  even  in  bonds,  if,  as  a 
matter  of  conscience  and  of  his  own  free  will,  he 
should  consent  to  be  in  subjection. 

Here,  then,  was  the  relation  established  by 
Christ  between  Christianity  and  civil  society. 
The  Church  was  a  pure  theocracy,  with  a  fixed 
faith  and  order,  and  ruled  over  by  a  living  king. 
Under  this  theocracy,  men  were  emancipated  into 
the  freedom,  the  dignity,  the  responsibility,  of 
individuality.  From  this  new  stand-point,  civil 
society  was  seen  to  be  wholly  distinct  from  the 
Church,  and  to  have  no  other  basis  than  the  con- 

1  Romans  xiii.  5. 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  59 

sent  of  the  people.  Nevertheless,  to  yield  that 
consent  was  an  obligation  of  conscience,  since 
civil  society  is  in  accordance  with  man's  nature 
and  God's  will ;  and  therefore  '*  the  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God."  Under  the  relation  so 
established,  the  Church  was  left  free,  notwith- 
standing her  fixed  order,  to  adjust  her  organiza- 
tion, so  to  speak,  to  external  conditions.1  So 
could  she  enter  into  such  relations  with  any  State 
as  would  range  her  on  the  side  of  the  peace  and 
well-being  of  society.  The  very  distinction  so 
plainly  worked  out  in  Church  history  between 
the  Church's  fixed  order  and  variable  organization 
clearly  indicates,  that,  while  the  one  was  divinely 
appointed,  the  other  was  of  human  origin  and 
authority  ;  and  the  actual  attitude  assumed  and 
maintained  by  the  Church  in  the  apostolic  and  sub- 
apostolic  age  is  perfectly  consistent  therewith. 
For  more  than  two  centuries  the  Church  under- 
took to  exercise  no  temporal  authority,  and  sought 
no  recognition  from,  or  alliance  with,  the  civil 
power.     And  this  was  not  at  all  because  the  State 

1  I  trust  I  may  refer  without  impropriety  to  a  sermon  on  the  Polity  of 
the  Church,  preached  by  me  before  the  Clerical  Association  of  Cleveland 
in  1880,  and  published,  in  which  the  distinction  between  "  order  "  and 
"organization  "  is  pointed  out. 


60  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

was  heathen ;  for  the  apostolic  teaching  was,  that 
even  a  heathen  government  had  the  divine  sanc- 
tion, as  we  have  seen  :  but  it  was  because  the 
attitude  and  relation  instituted  by  Christ  were 
not  forgotten  or  departed  from  in  the  Church's 
early  and  most  triumphant  days.  Nevertheless, 
the  time  did  come  when  this  relation  and  this 
attitude  were  abandoned.  In  an  evil  hour  the 
Church  yielded  to  the  patronage  of  an  unbaptized 
emperor,1  and  submitted  to  an  alliance  with  the 
powers  of  this  world.  Then  it  was  that  the 
Church  of  Christ  consented  to  become,  in  some 
respects  at  least,  a  department  of  the  civil  power. 
From  that  moment  her  true  glory  began  to  be 
obscured,  her  triumphs  to  be  limited,  and  the 
unnumbered  evils  of  Byzantinism  and  the  Papacy, 
and  of-  the  contest  between  them,  to  afflict  the 
Christian  world,  and  to  retard  the  civilization  and 
evangelization  of  the  human  race. 

In  order  to  understand  the  full"  import  of  this 
disastrous  alliance,  which  an  eminent  Christian 
historian  has  fitly  termed  "one  of  the  greatest 
tours  d'addresse  that  Satan  ever  played,"2  it  will 

1  It  is  noteworthy  that  Constantine  was  not  baptized  till  just  before 
his  death.  2  Arnold  :  Miscellaneous  Works,  p.  436. 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society.  61 

be  necessary  to  consider  for  a  moment  what 
authority  Constantine  claimed  as  emperor,  how 
far  his  pretensions  were  renounced  or  modified  in 
nominally  embracing  Christianity,  and  to  what 
extent  he  imposed  his  pretensions  on  the  Church. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that,  as  emperor, 
Constantine,  and  all  his  imperial  predecessors, 
had  based  their  authority  on  a  divine  right  to  rule. 
From  the  time  of  Augustus  Caesar  the  emperors 
were  acknowledged  as  vicegerents  of  God.  "Their 
persons  were  hallowed  by  the  office  of  Pontifex 
Maximns  and  the  tribunitian  power."  z  Poets, 
as  has  been  already  pointed  out,  had  sung  the 
advent  of  the  young  Augustus  as  the  descent  of 
a  divine  boy  from  the  skies,  who  should  deliver 
and  bless  mankind.  "  The  effigy  of  the  emperors 
was  sacred,  even  on  a  coin."2  " Divine  honors 
were  paid  to  them  in  life  as  well  as  after  death."  3 
"  In  the  confused  multiplicity  of  mythologies,  the 
worship  of  the  emperor  was  the  only  worship 
common  to  the  whole  Roman  world."  4  Now, 
when  Constantine  accepted  Christianity,  some  of 
these  pretensions  were  modified  certainly ;  but 
none  of   them  were  wholly  renounced.     "Under 

1  Bryce :  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  23.        2  Ibid.        3  Ibid.        *  Ibid. 


62  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  new  religion  the  form  of  adoration  vanished  : 
the  sentiment  of  reverence  remained."  l  The  title 
and  office  of  Pontifex  Maximus  were  retained,  and 
adapted  to  the  new  condition  of  affairs.  The  right 
to  control  the  Church  as  well  as  the  State  was 
promptly  asserted,  and  was  formally  admitted  at 
Nicrea  and  elsewhere  by  a  too  subservient  hierar- 
chy.2 Eusebius  speaks  of  Constantine  as  a  kind 
of  general  bishop,3  and  relates,  that,  on  one  occa- 
sion, the  emperor  told  some  episcopal  guests,  that, 
as  they  were  bishops  within  the  Church,  so  God 
had  made  him  bishop  without  it.4  And  in  num- 
berless ways  he  proceeded  to  lord  it  over  Christ's 
heritage,  placing  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
Church,  and  subordinating  the  spiritual  to  the 
civil  power. 

Apart  from  the  secularization  of  the  Church 
and  the  depravation  of  Christianity  which  resulted 
from  this  unholy  alliance,  important  consequences 
of  another  kind,  and  equally  disastrous,  began  to 
flow  from  it.  The  clergy,  leaning  on  the  secular 
arm,  and  defending  the  emperor's  assumptions  of 

1  Bryce:  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  23.  2  Ibid. 

3  Robertson  :  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  419. 
*  Ibid.  421. 


n.]  To  Civil  Society.  6$ 


power,  soon  began  to  formulate  the  idea  of  a  uni- 
versal or  world-church,  to  correspond  exactly  with 
the  empire  or  world-state.  As  the  empire,  or- 
dained of  God,  was  one ;  so  should  the  Church's 
unity  be  a  like  imperial  unity.  St.  Augustine,  in 
his  great  work,  "The  City  of  God,"  worked  out  a 
portion  of  this  ideal  relation.  The  further  thought 
soon  followed  of  a  world-bishop  or  Pope,  to  corre- 
spond with  the  world-king  or  emperor;  and  this 
was  the  genesis  of  the  Papacy.1  Circumstances 
favored  the  complete  development  of  the  idea. 
The  removal  of  the  seat  of  empire  from  old  Rome 
to  "  New  Rome,"  or  Constantinople,  universalized 
the  civil  idea,  but  correspondingly  weakened  it. 
The  irruption  of  the  barbarians,  who  found  noth- 
ing to  respect,  and  spared  nothing,  in  the  West 
but  the  power  of  the  Roman  see ;  the  division  of 
the  empire,  and  the  growing  influence  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome  in  that  time  of  tumult,  —  con- 
tinued to  exalt  the  ecclesiastical  power  of  the 
Popes,  till  at  length,  in  the  pretensions  of 
Hadrian  I.,2  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  suc- 
cessor of  Peter  was  proclaimed  :  and  when   Leo 

1  Bryce :  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  91  et  seq. 

2  Abbe  Guettee :  The  Papacy,  p.  258. 


6\  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

III.  placed  the  iron  crown  on  the  brow  of  Charle- 
magne, the  temporal  supremacy  of  the  Papal  see 
seemed  also  to  be  acknowledged,  at  least  in  the 
West.  The  time  speedily  came  when  the  Papal 
pretensions  became  quite  unendurable  by  the 
emperor.  It  is  still  a  question  as  to  how  far 
Charlemagne  intended,  by  receiving  his  crown  at 
the  Pope's  hands,  to  acknowledge  the  Pope's  supe- 
rior authority.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  story,  so 
long  believed,  that  Constantine  had,  by  special 
grant,  invested  Pope  Sylvester  with  imperial  au- 
thority in  the  West,  and  that  it  was  on  that 
account  that  Charlemagne  knelt  to  receive  the 
iron  crown,. is  false.  But  at  all  events,  from  that 
time  on,  in  spite  of  occasional  conflicts,  the  two- 
fold idea  of  a  world-monarchy  and  a  world-church 
yielded  support  to  both  Papal  and  imperial  despot- 
ism, till  the  subjugation  of  Christendom  seemed 
to  be  complete.  Nor  did  philosophy  fail  to  lend 
its  aid  to  this  disastrous  alliance.  The  influence  of 
Realism  in  establishing  a  philosophical  basis  for 
absolutism,  both  in  Church  and  State,  has  already 
been  pointed  out.1  Under  the  influence  of  that 
philosophy,  the  individual  was  once  more  obliter- 

1  Lecture  i. ;  also  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  97. 


ii.]  To  Civil  Society. 


ated  in  religion  and  society.  The  despotic  idea 
of  the  State  was  re-established,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  true  idea  of  the  Church  as  a  divine  theoc- 
racy was  overthrown.  By  a  perfectly  logical  retri- 
bution, the  Church,  in  grasping  at  temporal 
authority,  lost  its  true  spiritual  power,  and,  in 
seizing  the  kingdom  of  this  world,  placed  itself  in 
a  position  to  be  eventually  enslaved  by  it.  Mean- 
while the  history  of  mediaeval  European  civiliza- 
tion was  the  record  of  much  good  commingled 
*vith  no  little  evil ;  and  of  the  evil  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  that  most  of  it  is  directly  attributable 
to  the  alliance  of  Church  and  State. 

Our  present  purpose  requires  us,  however,  to 
devote  our  attention  chiefly  to  the  development  of 
the  relation  between  Church  and  State  in  English 
history.  Our  limits  will  not  permit  us  to  study 
the  many  vicissitudes  through  which  that  relation 
passed  under  British,  Saxon,  and  Danish  princes, 
and  under  Plantagenet  and  Tudor  kings.  Nor  can 
we  consider  the  many  questions,  doctrinal  and  ec- 
clesiastical, which  were  settled  or  unsettled  at  the 
time  of  the  English  Reformation,  further  than  as 
these  have  immediate  bearing  upon  the  relation  be- 
tween the  Church  and  the  civil  authority.    It  must 


66  The  Relatioji  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

suffice  for  us  to  point  out,  that  while  the  English 
Church  did  reform  its  doctrines,  and  regain  its 
ecclesiastical  independence  of  the  Papal  despot- 
ism, it  did  not  rescue  itself  from  the  tyranny  of 
the  civil  power.  Circumstances  had  all  along 
been  favorable  to  the  maintenance  of  a  close  alli- 
ance between  Church  and  State.  In  the  long 
contest  between  the  English  Church  and  the 
Papacy,  the  State  had  usually  been  the  bulwark 
of  the  Church  against  Papal  aggression.  In 
Magna  Charta,  in  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon, 
in  the  Statute  of  Prcemunire,  the  secular  arm  had 
undoubtedly  been  outstretched  to  defend  the 
Church  as  well  as  the  State  against  a  foreign 
spiritual  despotism.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  at 
the  Reformation,  that  the  relations  between 
Church  and  State  should  be  made  more  intimate, 
and  should  exalt,  rather  than  detract  from,  the 
sovereignty  of  the  civil  power.  Accordingly,  we 
find,  that,  when  Henry  VIII.  claimed  for  him- 
self a  supremacy  in  matters  ecclesiastical  which 
equalled  the  supremacy  claimed  and  exercised  by 
Constantine,  the  Church  made  but  feeble  resist- 
ance. The  doctrine  of  the  royal  supremacy  was 
pushed  to  its  greatest  extreme ;  and  the  assump- 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  67 


tions  of  the  crown,  after  a  verbal  modification, 
were  yielded  to.1  Though  this  doctrine  was  some- 
what softened,  it  was  not  really  modified,  in  the 
reigns  of  Edward,  Elizabeth,  James,  and  Charles. 
Under  its  provisions  the  free  Church  of  England, 
autonomous,  apostolic,  historic,  reformed,  con- 
sented to  become  a  "  Church  established  by  law  ;  " 
to  become,  in  some  respects,  a  department  of 
State;  to  be  used  for  political  purposes;  to  become 
the  apologist  and  defender  of  political  measures  ; 
in  a  word,  to  do  duty  as  an  "  Establishment : "  and 
it  is  out  of  this  unfortunate  relation  that  most  of 
the  evils  that  have  since  afflicted  the  English 
Church  have  proceeded. 

Resistance  to  such  an  arrangement  was  inevit- 
able. Unfortunately,  this  resistance  was  allowed 
to  organize  itself  outside  of  the  Church  instead 
of  within  it,  and  to  become  a  movement  hostile  to 
the  Church's  order.  Time  does  not  permit  us 
to  do  more  than  summarize  the  characteristics  of 
the  great  Puritan  re-action.  Undoubtedly,  it  had 
its  origin  partly  in  doctrinal  divergences ;  and  it 

1  Blunt:  Reformation  in  England,  pp.  111-134.  Hardwick :  History 
of  the  Christian  Church  during  the  Reformation,  pp.  191-193.  Burnet: 
History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  i.  pp.  112,  113. 


68  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

assumed  a  certain  doctrinal  type,  with  which  at 
present  we  have  nothing  to  do.  It  is  also  unde- 
niable, that  it  finally  antagonized  itself  against  the 
Church's  order  as  well  as  against  its  organization. 
But  no  candid  examination  of  the  origin  and  prog- 
ress of  Puritanism  can  escape  the  conclusion,  that 
the  whole  movement,  including  Independency, 
was  mainly  political,  and  was  directed  against  cer- 
tain evils  that  were  attributed  to  the  Establish- 
ment and  to  the  doctrine  of  royal  supremacy. 
The  majority  of  the  Elizabethan,  Jacobean,  and 
early  Caroline  bishops  consented  to  become  the 
champions  of  the  royal  prerogative,  of  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance,  and  of  the  divine  right  of  kings.1 
The  supreme  questions  on  which  the  Puritans  and 
Independents  antagonized  the  Church  were  politi- 
cal, and  not  religious.2  James  I.  declared  in  Par- 
liament, that  it  was  not  on  religious,  but  on  politi- 
cal, grounds  that  the  Puritans  differed  from  himself 
and  his  supporters  ;  3  and  Cromwell  distinctly  and 
repeatedly  declared  in  1653,  that  the  origin  of  the 
war   was    not    religious. 4     The    undiscriminating 

1  Arnold :  Lectures  on  Modern  History,  p.  232.  2  Ibid. 

3  Speech  of  James  I.  in  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  i.  p.  982. 

4  Carlyle:  Cromwell,  vol.  iii.  p.  103. 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  69 

espousal  of  the  royal  cause,  with  all  its  dangerous 
political  and  ecclesiastical  pretensions,  by  Laud, 
and  the  rest  of  the  hierarchy  under  Charles  I., 
alienated  large  numbers  of  the  people ;  so  that  it 
may  be  said,  that  it  was  not  against  the  Church, 
but  against  the  Establishment,  that  the  great  Revo- 
lution directed  its  blind  and  iconoclastic  fury. 
We  shall  hereafter  have  occasion  to  remark  how 
Laud's  zeal,  not  for  the  Church,  but  for  the  Estab- 
lishment, drove  out  many  of  the  Church's  chil- 
dren, some  of  whom  came  to  America,  and  here 
essayed  to  establish  a  system  that  should  be  free 
from  the  evils  inflicted  by  the  archbishop's  heavy 
hand.  For  the  present  it  is  enough  to  point  out, 
that,  in  all  those  troublesome  times,  the  Church 
was  fighting  battles  not  her  own,  and  that  the 
many  evils  of  dissent  and  nonconformity  by  which 
she  was  so  sore  bestead  were  but  the  fruits  of  the 
unhappy  alliance  which  she  made  with  the  king- 
dom of  this  world. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that,  while 
the  Puritans  arrayed  themselves  against  the  Estab- 
lishment, it  was  not  because  they  objected  to  the 
alliance  or  union  of  Church  and  State,  but  it  was 
because  they  opposed  the  terms  of   the  existing 


70  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

alliance.  They  objected  with  good  reason  to  the 
supremacy  of  the  State  over  the  Church  ;  but  they 
desired  to  establish  the  opposite,  and  quite  as 
objectionable,  extreme,  in  making  the  Church  su- 
preme over  the  State.  In  other  words,  they 
desired  that  the  State  should  be  administered  on 
religious  principles,  and  that  they  should  define 
and  apply  those  principles,  —  a  theory  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  that  has  not  yet  perished  from 
the  face  of  the  earth.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  that 
the  Puritans  would  have  remained  in  the  Church 
on  these  terms,  only  stipulating  that  the  hierarchy 
should  be  composed  of  Puritan  bishops,  and  that 
the  State  should  be  subservient  to  them.  For  a 
long  time  it  was  the  theory  of  the  Puritans,  that 
the  civil  power  could  be  so  reformed  as  to  become 
a  willing  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  "saints." 
But  at  length  many  of  the  stronger  spirits  among 
them  grew  weary  of  waiting  for  such  an  adjust- 
ment, and  went  off  into  the  peculiar  separatism 
called  Independency.  Subsequently  many  of  the 
remaining  Puritans  became  Presbyterians,  because 
the  bishops  of  the  Church  refused  to  accept  their 
peculiar  theocratic  views ;  and  then  the  Church 
was  assailed  on  both  sides,  because  of  her  alliance 


n.]  To  Civil  Society.  .    71 

with  the  State.  Circumstances,  combined  with 
the  greater  simplicity  and  consistency  of  their 
early  political  opinions,  soon  gave  the  predomi- 
nance of  power  to  the  Independents ;  but  it  was 
yet  too  soon  for  any  party  to  become  the  consist- 
ent advocates  of  a  total  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  When  the  Independents  came  into  power, 
they  soon  developed  a  more  bigoted  and  intoler- 
ant theory  of  theocratic  government  than  the 
early  Puritans.  Cromwell  seized  the  reins  of 
power  as  the  Lord's  anointed,  and  based  his  claim 
to  authority,  not  on  the  will  of  the  people,  but  on 
the  will  of  God.  He  united  in  his  own  person  the 
office  of  civil  and  military  dictator,  of  Pope,  of 
emperor,  and  of  Pontifcx  Maximns,  and  under- 
took to  rule  the  consciences  of  men  with  quite  as 
firm  a  hand  as  he  ruled  their  conduct.1  Indeed, 
so  odious  did  this  tyranny  become,  in  matters  both 
civil  and  religious,  that  it  soon  became  apparent 
that  the  old  Establishment  was  better  than  the 
new  theocracy  ; 2  and  the  Presbyterians  united  with 
Churchmen,  and  all  the  sincerest  friends  of  liberty 
throughout  the  realm,  in  bringing  back  the  exiled 
Stuarts  to  the  English  throne. 

1  Carlyle  :  Cromwell,  vol.  iii.  105  et  seq. 

2  Hume :  History  of  England,  vol.  vii.  pp.  258-308. 


72  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

The  Revolution  of  1688,  and  the  subsequent  set- 
tlement of  the  Hanoverian  succession,  developed 
yet  another  stage  in  the  adjustment  of  the  rela- 
tion between  Church  and  State.  At  the  Restora- 
tion the  old  doctrines  of  non-resistance,  of  the 
royal  supremacy,  and  of  the  divine  right  of  kings, 
re-appeared  with  increased  vigor ;  and,  as  was 
natural,  the  clergy,  and  especially  the  bishops, 
became  the  defenders  of  them.  It  was  indeed 
quite  natural  that  the  hierarchy  that  had  suffered 
and  gone  into  exile  with  the  house  of  Stuart,  and 
now  had  been  restored  with  the  king,  should  iden- 
tify the  rights  and  authority  of  the  Church  with 
the  royal  cause,  and  refuse  to  distinguish  between 
loyalty  to  the  Church  and  loyalty  to  the  king. 
Accordingly,  when,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688, 
it  became  necessary  to  take  the  oaths  to  William 
and  Mary,  and  to  renounce  the  house  of  Stuart, 
five  bishops,  including  the  primate,  submitted  to 
deprivation  rather  than  make  the  distinction. 
The  vacant  sees  were  at  once  filled  with  prelates 
who  took  a  more  liberal,  and,  as  we  can  see,  a 
more  just  and  sound,  view  of  the  matter.  With 
the  surrender  of  the  old  doctrine  of  divine  right, 
on   which   the   claims   of    the    house    of    Stuart 


II.]  To  Civil  Society.  73 

rested,  it  became  necessary  to  establish  a  new 
doctrine  of  the  true  basis  of  civil  society.  This 
was  undertaken  by  Locke,1  who  was  followed  by 
Hoadley2  and  Warburton,3  who  elaborated  with 
great  learning  what  is  called  the  social-compact 
theory  of  government,  —  a  theory,  which,  it  is  not 
too  much  to  say,  embodied  the  principles  long 
before  set  in  operation  by  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
registered  the  results  of  the  Nominalistic  philos- 
ophy, and  led  on  to  the  establishment  on  these 
shores  of  civil  liberty.4  Unhappily,  however,  the 
great  and  philosophical  thinkers  who  did  this 
service  for  the  State,  were  not  free  to  plead  for 
the  Church's  liberty  also.  The  burden  of  the 
Establishment  still  weighed  down  the  Church's 
life.5  The  concordat  between  Church  and  State 
was  undisturbed,  and  still  remains  in  force  ; 6  and 
later  English  writers  and  thinkers,  who  were  well 

1  Locke :  Of  Government,  and  Of  Civil  Government. 

2  Bishop  Hoadley :  The  Original  and  Institution  of  Civil  Government. 

3  Bishop  Warburton :  The  Alliance  between  Church  and  State,  bk  i. 

4  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  admirable  notes  of  Bishop  Whittingham 
to  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  pp.  291-342. 

5  See  the  works  of  Locke,  Hoadley,  and  Warburton,  above  referred  to. 

6  For  an  accurate  statement  of  the  terms  of  the  actual  existing 
concordat  between  Church  and  State  in  England,  see  an  able  article  in  the 
British  Critic  for  April,  1839,  art.  iii.  pp.  321-367. 


74  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

qualified  by  their  correct  views,  both  of  civil  soci- 
ety and  of  the  Church's  historic  and  theocratic 
constitution,  to  take  the  only  consistent  view  of 
the  relation  between  them,  have  been  limited  by 
the  condition  of  being  required  to  defend  the 
Establishment,  either  on  principle  or  from  ex- 
pediency.1 For  this  reason  the  true  relation  be- 
tween Christianity  and  civil  society  —  as  to  be 
seen  only  from  the  Churchman's  stand-point  —  has 
yet  to  be  defined  in  English  Christian  literature. 
I  believe  that  more  auspicious  conditions  sur- 
round our  inquiry,  and  that  on  these  shores,  and 
for  the  first  time  in  centuries  of  political  and 
ecclesiastical  strife,  there  is  room  and  opportunity 
for  true  Christian  statesmanship.  I  also  ven- 
ture to  believe,  that  such  statesmanship  must 
sooner  or  later  occupy  the  point  of  view  of  the 
American  Churchman,  who,  while  he  holds  that 
the  Church  is  a  theocracy,  also  holds  that  the 
State  is  merely  a  secular  and  social  compact, 
though  not  the  less  authoritative  for  that  reason ; 
and  who  believes  that  we,  in  this  land,  are  in  a 

1  See  Mr.  Gladstone's  The  State  in  its  Relations  with  the  Church,  chap, 
iv.  Also  Bishop  Warburton's  Alliance  between  Church  and  State,  part 
ii.  sect.  iii. 


n.]  To  Civil  Society.  yc 


condition  freely  to  realize  the  relation  between 
Christianity  and  civil  society  indicated  by  Christ 
himself,  when  he  uttered  the  words  so  often  and 
so  long  misunderstood,  "  Render  unto  ■  Caesar  the 
things  which  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the 
things  that  are  God's." 


LECTURE  III. 

THE   ANSWER   OF   CHRIST,  AND   THE   DEVEL- 
OPMENTS  OF   AMERICAN   HISTORY. 


LECTURE   III. 

THE    ANSWER    OF    CHRIST,   AND   THE   DEVELOPMENTS 
OF   AMERICAN    HISTORY. 

"If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend."  — St.  John 
xix.  12. 

rT^HE  charge  which  the  Jews  preferred  against 
■*■  Jesus  —  that,  in  making  himself  a  king,  he 
put  himself  and  his  kingdom  into  opposition  to 
the  Caesar  and  his  imperial  power  —  was  both 
false  and  true.  It  was  false  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  Jews  intended  it.  It  was  true  in  a  deeper 
sense  than  they  or  Pilate  could  understand.  Jesus 
had  already  completely  renounced  all  claim  to 
sovereignty  over  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  ;  and 
it  was  the  capital  fault  which  the  Jews  found  in 
him,  that  he  had  made  and  persisted  in  such 
renunciation.  Not  only  so,  but  with  equal  per- 
sistency he  had  refused,  both  to  ally  himself  with 
and  to  antagonize  the  civil  power,  upon  the  ground 
so  little  understood  in  that  day  and  since,  that  his 
"kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."     The  conspicu- 

79 


80  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

ous  indifference  of  Jesus  to  temporal  honors,  and 
his  utter  refusal  of  temporal  authority,  even  when 
his  countrymen  were  eager  to  thrust  it  upon  him, 
were  sufficient  evidence  of  the  falseness  and 
malignity  of  the  charge  that  was  made  against 
him.  Nevertheless,  it  was  true  that  there  was 
an  irreconcilable  antagonism  between  the  theo- 
cratic imperialism  of  the  Caesar  and  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  that  gospel  a  prin- 
ciple was  set  in  operation  among  men,  that  was 
sure,  sooner  or  later,  to  work  human  emanci- 
pation. It  was  a  principle,  that  in  individualizing 
man,  in  awaking  him  to  a  realizing  sense  of  his 
personal  dignity  and  personal  responsibility,  and 
in  raising  him  by  faith  and  through  grace  "into 
the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,"  was, 
sooner  or  later,  to  render  all  human  tyrannies 
utterly  intolerable, — a  principle  which,  unless  the 
Church  had  unworthily  consented  in  a  woful 
after-time  to  surrender  it,  would  long  since  have 
banished  Caesarism,  with  its  preposterous  claim 
of  divine  right,  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  There 
was  a  jDrofound  and  irreconcilable  issue,  then, 
between  Christianity  and  the  theocratic  imperial- 
ism of  the  Caesar;   but  it  was  not  to  be  settled 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  81 

in  Pilate's  judgment-hall:   nor  did  Pilate,  or  the 
noisy  mob  who  clamored  before  the  pratoriwn  for 
the    "innocent   blood,"  understand   that  issue  at 
all.     It   was    not   to    be   settled    by   condemning 
Jesus  the  king,  nor  by  smiting  him  to  death.     It 
was  not  to  be  settled  by  the  stroke  of  fiery  perse- 
cutions, nor  by  the  oppositions  of  either  supersti- 
tion or  philosophy.     It  was  not  to  be  settled  by 
the   surrender   of   the    Christian    Church   to   the 
same  haughty  and  theocratic  imperialism  in  the 
person    of    Constantine,    emperor  and  "  Pontifex 
Maximus"     It  was  not  to  be  settled  by  the  estab- 
lishment   of   the   daring   claim  of  the  Papacy  to 
supreme  temporal    and    spiritual    power.     It  was 
not    to    be    settled   by   the   resumption    in    Eng- 
land of   imperial  supremacy  over  the  Church  by 
English  kings.     It  was  not  to  be  settled  by  the 
erection   of    the   revolutionary   theocracy   of   the 
Commonwealth  upon  the  ruins   of   such  suprem- 
acy.    It   was   not   to   be   settled   in  any  alliance 
between  Church  and  State,  any  more  than  in  the 
triumph  of  either  over  the  other ;   but   it  was  to 
be  settled  in  the  adjustment  finally  to  be   made 
between  membership  and  discipleship  in  a  purely 
spiritual  and  theocratic  kingdom  on  the  one  hand, 


82  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

and  citizenship  in  a  purely  secular  and  civil  soci- 
ety on  the  other. 

I  need  not  recapitulate  what  has  been  said 
already  of  the  evils  which  resulted  from  the 
Church's  surrender  to  Constantine,  and  from 
the  subsequent  development  of  Byzantinism  and 
the  Papacy.  From  the  last  of  these  the  English 
Church  was  happily  freed  at  the  Reformation,  but 
it  was  not  her  happiness  then  to  escape  from  the 
tyranny  of  the  temporal  power.  Indeed,  under 
the  virtual  concordat  then  and  subsequently  forced 
upon  her,  she  has  been  compelled  to  do  duty  as 
an  Establishment,  and  too  often  to  become  the 
instrument  of,  and  the  apologist  for,  the  arbitrary 
and  tyrannical  exercise  of  the  civil  authority.  The 
peculiar  calamity  of  this  most  unhappy  conjunc- 
tion cannot  be  exaggerated.  For  centuries  the 
English  Church  has  occupied  a  false  position,  and 
has  been  held  responsible  for  the  very  oppression 
of  which  she  herself  has  been  the  worst  victim.  It 
is  difficult  for  an  American  Churchman  to  repress 
a  feeling  of  sorrowful  indignation  when  he  remem- 
bers how  our  mother  Church  has  been  used  by 
many  a  despotic  cabal  under  Tudor  and  Stuart 
and  Hanoverian,  by  Whig  and  Tory  administra- 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  83 

tions,  by  secularist  and  infidel  ministries,  to  serve 
ends  utterly  alien  to  her  true  polity,  and  to  further 
purposes,  which,  if  her  true  voice  could  have  been 
heard,  she  would  have  renounced  as  utterly  un- 
worthy. It  is  a  truth  which  cannot,  I  believe, 
be  too  much  insisted  on,  that  almost  all  the  evils 
which  have  afflicted  and  still  afflict  English  Chris- 
tianity have  been  caused  or  provoked  by  the  bur- 
den of  the  royal  supremacy  which  the  English 
Church  has  had  thrust  upon  her.  In  consenting 
to  do  duty  as  a  Church  established  by  law,  she 
has  apparently  identified  herself  and  her  fortunes 
with  a  merely  human  power.  It  was  against  this 
arrangement,  and  the  policy  which  resulted  from 
it,  and  not  necessarily  against  the  Church  as 
Christ's  kingdom,  that  English  nonconformity 
was  first  arrayed,  until  such  nonconformity  was 
in  some  instances  driven  out  by  the  secular  arm, 
and  made  strong  and  formidable  by  persecution. 
So  calamitous  was  this  ill-omened  alliance,  that  the 
revolution  which  first  hurled  the  Stuart  dynasty 
from  the  throne  dragged  the  Church  down  with 
it ;  and  it  was  not  till  the  Stuarts  were  finally 
banished  from  the  kingdom,  that  the  Church  was 
delivered   from    the   task,   long   so   servilely  per- 


84  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

formed,  of  defending  the  divine  right  of  kings. 
With  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary,  the 
Church  was  free  and  prompt  to  assume  a  truer 
relation  to  the  State ;  and  it  will  remain  an  imper- 
ishable honor  to  the  English  Church,  that  some 
of  her  bishops  were  among  the  first  to  enunciate 
formally  the  great  truth,  that  the  authority  of  civil 
government  is  derived  solely  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  and  so  to  lay  down  the  true  basis 
of  civil  society.1  But,  in  the  mean  time,  even 
before  the  Church  was  free  to  formulate  this  prin- 
ciple, her  children  were  engaged,  beneath  other 
skies,  in  its  practical  realization.  Meantime  a 
great  movement  was  begun  out  of  England  toward 
a  vast  continent,  which  for  long  centuries  had 
been  hidden  in  the  West,  as  if  reserved  to  be  the 
forum  in  which  all  the  questions  which  had  hith- 
erto vexed  the  world  should  find  their  final  adjudi- 
cation. Hither  the  sons  of  English  Christianity 
came  to  work  out,  for  the  most  part  unconsciously, 
and  even  in  spite  of  their  own  obstructive  methods, 
the  great  experiment  of  human  liberty.  And  here, 
under  these  open  heavens,  I  believe  the  world  is 
destined  to  witness  for  the  first  time  in  history 

1  Hoadley  and  Warburton. 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  85 

the  establishment  of   the    true   relation   between 
Christianity  and  civil  society. 

A  brief  consideration,  then,  of  some  of  the  most 
important  influences  that  were  active  in  shaping 
the  beginnings  of  our  national  life,  will  be  indis- 
pensable to  our  present  purpose.  And  the  first 
remark  that  I  make  in  this  connection  is,  that  the 
impulse  which  began,  and  in  large  measure  ac- 
complished, the  colonization  of  our  territory,  was 
mainly  commercial,  and  not  political  or  religious. 
The  age  of  the  Reformation  was  distinguished  by 
a  great  outburst  of  energy,  which  signalized  itself, 
under  Henry  VIII.,  Elizabeth,  and  James  I.,  in 
maritime  adventure,  commercial  enterprise,  and 
especially  in  those  great  colonizing  movements 
which  attested  the  restlessness  of  the  age  and 
the  vigor  of  the  English  people.  The  earliest 
attempts  at  American  colonization  had  no  connec- 
tion whatever  with  political  or  religious  discon- 
tent. When  we  remember  that  Virginia,  the 
Carolinas,  Georgia,  and  New  York  were  settled 
wholly  in  obedience  to  this  commercial  and  colo- 
nizing instinct,  it  will  be  seen  how  groundless  is 
the  claim,  that  the  beginnings  of  our  national  life 
were  due  to  political  or  religious  grievances  in  the 


86  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

mother  country.  When  it  is  observed,  moreover, 
that  the  colonies,  like  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas, 
which  confessedly  were  not  planted  by  religious 
or  political  propagandism,  were  at  least  as  forward 
in  the  development  and  establishment  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  as  were  those,  like  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut,  which  were  settled  from  alleged 
religious  and  political  motives,  we  see  reason  for 
concluding  that  the  direction  and  development  of 
our  national  life  towards  the  realization  of  liberty 
were  shaped  and  determined,  not  so  much  by  the 
original  impulses  which  drove  the  colonists  hither, 
or  by  any  of  them,  as  by  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances which  taught  independence  and  self-reli- 
ance to  all  the  colonists  alike.  No  doubt,  there 
were  Puritan  colonies  and  Quaker  plantations  and 
Lutheran  settlements :  but,  then,  there  were 
Church-of-England  colonies  also ;  and  when  we 
find  a  Church-of-England  colony,  like  Virginia  for 
instance,  actually  leading  in  the  race  and  in  the 
fight  for  freedom,  and  that,  too,  from  the  very  be- 
ginning, it  will  not  do  to  say  that  any  separatist 
religious  impulse,  like  Puritanism  or  Independ- 
ency for  instance,  was  the  sole  source,  or  even  a 
distinguishing  source,  from  which  our  liberties  have 


Ind  To  Civil  Society.  gy 

sprung.     Nay, — for  our  argument  is  cumulative, 
—  the  very  fact  that  anti-Puritan  Virginia  did  ac- 
tually outstrip  Puritan  Massachusetts  in  the  race 
for  liberty,  as  we    shall    have  occasion  to  notice 
presently,  suggests    the  fact,  which  is  otherwise 
verifiable,  that  it  was  not  because  of  Puritanism, 
but  rather  in  spite  of  it,'  that  our  liberties  were 
achieved  at  last.     And  the  same  is  true  of  each  of 
the  characteristic  religious  movements  of  the  pe- 
riod.    If    Puritanism    had    succeeded   in  carrying 
out  its  plans,  we  should  have  had  no  civil  or  reli- 
gious   liberty  at   all ;    but  we  should  have  had  a 
pure  theocracy  of  the  most  despotic  type,  in  which 
the  "saints,"  led  by  their  ministers,  would  have 
ruled  with  iron  hand  the  temporal  and    spiritual 
affairs  of  the  commonwealth.     If  the  Quaker  idea 
had  prevailed,  we  should  have  had  religious  tolera- 
tion indeed  of  every  thing  but  a  Church;    sirfce 
the  tendencies  of  Quakerism  would  have  abolished 
the  Church  altogether,  and  made  the  State  take  its 
place.     If   the  Establishment  idea  had  prevailed, 
we  should  have  had  such  an  alliance  of   Church 
and  State  as  still  exists  in  England.     But  neither 
of  these  ideas  prevailed.     The  movement  towards 
civil    and    religious    liberty   was    due   to    none  of 


88  The  Relation  of  CJiristianity  [Lect. 

them,  but  was  rather  due  to  the  removal  of  facti- 
tious restraint  and  traditional  hinderances  from  all 
the  colonists  alike ;  to  the  throwing  of  them  alike 
upon  the  responsibilities  of  Christian  manhood, 
and  the  leaving  of  them  free,  as  men,  to  yield  to 
the  impulses  which  move  Christian  men  to  organ- 
ize civil  society. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  the  very  emigration 
of  the  colonists  was  their  emancipation.  No 
matter  what  impulse  drove  them  forth  from  the 
mother-land,  it  exiled  them  into  liberty ;  and  the 
broad  Atlantic  kept  watch  and  ward  over  them 
while  they  realized  and  appropriated  their  liberty 
in  the  institutions  of  a  free  State.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  early  history  of  all  the  colonies  will 
disclose  the  fact,  that  each  one  of  them  was  prac- 
tically free,  almost  from  the  very  beginning,  to 
frame  its  own  government,  and  to  make  that  gov- 
ernment representative  of  and  responsible  to  the 
people.  More  than  a  year  before  the  Pilgrims 
landed  at  Plymouth,  the  colonists  of  Virginia  had 
actually  organized  a  government  which  was  prac- 
tically as  free,  and  as  responsible  to  themselves, 
as  was  the  government  provided  for  by  the  famous 
covenant  drawn  up  in  the  cabin  of  "The  May- 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  89 

flower."  l  And  so  it  will  be  seen,  that  just  as  fast 
as  the  settlers  on  these  shores  realized  their  inde- 
pendence, and  their  need  of  self-reliance  and  of 
the  mutual  protection  of  social  order,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  organize  civil  society  for  themselves,  as 
a  social  compact,  and  as  deriving  its  authority 
really  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
Though  attempts  were  made  in  the  first  instance 
to  impose  institutions  upon  the  colonists  from  the 
mother-land,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  earlier  proprie- 
tary charters,  and  in  the  famous  plan  of  govern- 
ment drawn  up  for  South  Carolina  by  Locke  and 
Shaftesbury ;  yet  in  every  case  those  cumbersome 
and  useless  forms  were  speedily  outgrown  and 
swept  aside,  and  the  people  were  practically  left 
free  to  organize  society  for  themselves.  The  colo- 
nists were  in  a  manner  forced  to  realize  their  indi- 
viduality, with  the  sense  of  personal  dignity  and 
personal  responsibility  belonging  to  it ;  and  they 
were  moved  to  organize  self-government,  both 
by  the  dangers  and  necessities  which  pressed 
upon  them  from  without,  and  by  the  social  and 

1  Bancroft:  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  pp.  118,  119.  It  is 
to  be  noted,  that  the  references  to  Bancroft's  History  are  all  made  to  the 
edition  of  1879,  Little,  Brown,  &  Co.,  Boston. 


90  The  Relation  of  CJiristianity  [Lect. 

civil  instinct  which  impelled  them  from  within. 
Such  hinderances  as  were  interposed  by  proprie- 
tary councils  and  colonial  governors  were  quietly 
ignored  or  forcibly  put  aside,  and  the  more  inti- 
mate and  formidable  hinderances  of  traditional 
opinion  were  quietly  outgrown.  With  occasional 
disturbances  and  retrogressions,  but  with  general 
and  remarkable  vigor,  the  colonists  moved  on 
towards  the  fuller  and  more  complete  realization 
of  popular  government.  For  the  first  time  in  the 
world's  history  the  august  spectacle  was  seen  of 
free  and  equal  men  acting  in  accordance  with 
their  own  social  and  civil  instincts,  and  organiz- 
ing free  and  responsible  civil  society,  the  sanction 
and  authority  of  which  were  to  rest  wholly  on 
their  own  consent.  And  the  interest  and  dignity 
of  this  great  movement  are  only  enhanced  by  the 
fact,  that,  for  the  most  part,  it  was  engaged  in 
almost  unconsciously  by  the  actors  themselves. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  the  colonists  grew 
into  freedom,  and,  all  along,  were  building  wiser 
than  they  knew.  It  has  been  well  said,  that  the 
New-England  colonists  came  over  to  build  a  Zion, 
and  to  this  end  they  directed  all  their  conscious 
efforts ;  but  all  the  while  it  was  not  a  Zion,  but  a 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  91 

State,  that  they  were  building.1  So  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Virginia,  in  Connecticut  and  Carolina, 
in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  the  colonists  were 
led,  not  by  their  conscious  ideals,  but  often  in 
spite  of  them,  to  build  a  great  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people,  to  be  a 
home  for  the  aspiring  and  a  refuge  for  the  op- 
pressed of  the  human  race.  It  is  a  salutary  cor- 
rective of  much  that  we  have  been  hearing  for 
many  years  past,  to  remember,  that  it  was  not  in 
Puritan  New  England,  but  in  cavalier  Virginia, 
that  the  plant  of  liberty  grew  most  rapidly,  and 
soonest  bore  its  ripened  fruit.  It  was  George 
Mason,  the  stanch  and  devout  Virginia  Church- 
man, who  drew  up  the  Declaration  of  Rights  that 
was  subsequently  embodied,  but  not  improved  or 
enlarged,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence ; 
and  Mason's  Declaration  was  unanimously  adopted 
by  the  Virginia  colonial  legislature,  a  vast  major- 
ity of  whom  were  Churchmen.  And  not  only  was 
this  the  first  and  most  notable  declaration  of  civil 
liberty,  but  it  was  the  very  first  declaration  of 
religious  liberty  as  well :  for,  scores  of  years 
before  the  laws  of  religious  intolerance  were  ex- 

1  Lowell :  New  England  Two  Centuries  Ago,  p.  238. 


92  TJic  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

punged  from  the  statute-books  of  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut,  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses 
declared  in  this  immortal  document,  that  "  Reli- 
gion can  be  directed  only  by  reason  and  convic- 
tion, and  not  by  force  and  violence  ;  and  therefore 
all  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  free  exercise  of 
it  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience ;  and  it 
is  the  mutual  duty  of  all  to  practise  Christian 
forbearance,  love,  and  charity  towards  each 
other."  l 

The  achievement  of  religious  liberty,  indeed, 
was  a  far  more  difficult  and  complicated  task  than 
the  accomplishment  of  civil  freedom.  In  order  to 
understand  it,  we  must  consider  briefly  the  three 
principal  schools  of  religious  thought  which  con- 
ditioned the  problem  in  the  different  colonies. 
These  were  Puritanism,  Quakerism,  and  Angli- 
canism ;  meaning  by  the  last,  that  relation  to  the 
Establishment  which  was  sustained  by  all  Church- 
men in  colonial  times.  Let  us  consider  these  in 
the  order  named. 

We  have  seen  that  Puritanism,  as  it  developed 
itself  in  England  under  Elizabeth  and  James,  was 
formally    theological   and   philosophical,  but   was 

1  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  v.  pp.  260-262. 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  93 


really  political.     In   its  own  consciousness,  how- 
ever, it  was  altogether  religious,  and  took  on  the 
type,  as  it  advanced,  of  a  stern  and  gloomy  fanati- 
cism.    With  its  theological  opinions  and  religious 
character  we  have  here  nothing  to  do,  except  as 
these  affected  its  relations   to  the  State  or  civil 
society.     The  mass  of  the  Puritans  were  not  origi- 
nally opposed  to  the  hierarchy.     Indeed,  several 
of  the  bishops  themselves  belonged  to  the  Puritan 
party.     Nor  were   the    Puritans    opposed   to    the 
alliance  of  Church  and  State.     They  only  insisted 
on   inverting  the  terms  of  that  alliance  so  as  to 
make  the  State  entirely  subservient  to  the  Church. 
Their  complaint  was,  that  the  civil  power  would 
not  carry  the   Reformation  to  the  lengths  which 
they  desired  ;  and  for  a  long  time  their  hope  was, 
that  the  State  might  be  reduced  to  such  subjec- 
tion   to    them    as    to   become    obedient   to   their 
wishes.     A  few  of  the  most  earnest  and   devout 
soon  relinquished  this  hope,  and  became  separat- 
ists under  the  name  of  Independents.     These,  in 
theory  at  least,  soon  began  to  call  for  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  Establishment,  on  the  ground  that  all 
alliance  between  the  civil  and  religious  power  was 
indefensible.     In  point  of  fact,  their  real  purpose 


94  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

was,  to  destroy  both  the  Establishment  and  the 
State,  and  to  substitute  therefor  a  kingdom  of  the 
"saints,"  in  which  Church  and  State  should  be 
merged  into  one.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that 
with  this  phase  of  Puritanism  we  have  but  little 
concern.  It  soon  ran  its  course  under  the  Com- 
monwealth, —  a  movement,  which,  while  it  signal- 
ized the  greatness  of  its  leaders,  will  always  be 
ranked  as  one  of  the  completest  failures  in  history. 
Nor  need  we  make  more  than  a  passing  reference 
to  that  noted  colony  of  separatists,  which,  leaving 
Northern  England,  went  first  to  Amsterdam,  and 
then  to  Leyden,  and  from  thence  despatched  the 
illustrious  little  company  of  Pilgrims  which  came 
in  "The  Mayflower"  to  these  shores.  No  one  can 
be  insensible  to  the  romantic  and  poetic  interest 
that  belongs  to  the  goodly  little  band,  who, 
throughout  the  whole  course  of  their  wanderings, 
set  an  example  of  constancy,  and  greatness  of  soul, 
that  were  worthy  of  the  faith's  best  ages, — of 
whom  their  pious  leader  well  said,  that  "they  knew 
they  were  pilgrims,  and  looked  not  much  on  the 
things  of  earth,  but  lifted  up  their  eyes  to  heaven, 
their  dearest  country,  and  quieted  their  spirits."  r 

1  Bancroft:  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  235. 


in.]  To  Civil  Society.  95 

Deeply  touched,  however,  as  all  must  be,  by  the 
idyllic  grace  of  the  story  of  the  Pilgrims,  and 
pleasant  as  it  is  to  linger  over  it,  yet  candor  com- 
pels us  to  acknowledge,  that  the  true  genesis  of 
New-England  colonial  life  is  not  to  be  traced  to 
Plymouth,  and  that  the  Pilgrims  had  no  direct  and 
but  little  indirect  influence  in  shaping  its  later 
development.  The  true  beginning  of  New-Eng- 
land colonial  life  was  originally  projected  by 
Arthur  Lake,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  one  of 
the  Puritan  prelates  of  the  English  Church.  So 
greatly  was  the  bishop  interested  in  the  move- 
ment, that  he  declared,  shortly  before  his  death, 
that  "he  would  go  himself,  but  for  his  age."1 
The  plan  projected  by  him  was  carried  out  later 
by  his  coadjutor  and  friend,  the  Rev.  John  White, 
"the  patriarch  minister  of  Dorchester,"  and,  like 
Lake,  a  Puritan,  but  not  a  separatist,  who,  with 
Roger  Conant,  succeeded  in  1625  in  planting  the 
colony  of   Salem  on   the   Bay  of  Massachusetts.2 

1  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  264.  Also  A 
Dying  Father's  Last  Legacy  to  an  Only  Child ;  or,  Mr.  Hugh  Peters's 
Advice  to  His  Daughter,  pp.  101,  102,  London,  1660.  Also  Felt's  Eccle- 
siastical History  of  New  England,  pp.  79,  80.  It  is  to  be  noted,  that  this 
important  statement  is  in  the  latest,  but  not  in  the  earlier,  editions  of 
Bancroft. 

2  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  264. 


g6  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

Few,  if  any,  of  the  original  colonists  were  separat- 
ists. Among  their  leaders  and  most  active  sup- 
porters were  the  Rev.  Samuel  Skelton  of  Clare 
Hall,  Cambridge;  and  the  Rev.  Francis  Higginson 
of  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  both  in  English 
orders,  though  Puritans.1  It  is  to  be  noted,  more- 
over, that,  soon  after  the  later  settlement  of  the 
colony  at  Boston,  none  but  clergymen  in  regular 
orders  were  elected  and  set  apart  to  minister  to 
the  congregation.2  Soon  afterwards,  indeed,  the 
churches  of  the  colony  proceeded  to  elaborate  an 
organization  different  from  that  of  the  English 
Church,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Independents  ;  but  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  this  was  designed  at  first  to  be  a  departure, 
rather  from  the  organization  of  the  Establishment 
than  from  the  Church's  order.  Two  of  their  num- 
ber, John  and  Samuel  Browne,  protested  against 
even  this  departure ;  and  they  were  promptly  si- 
lenced and  expelled  :  but,  in  doing  this,  the  Puri- 
tans declared  that  their  purpose  was,  to  separate, 
"not  from  the  Church  of  England,  but  from  its 

1  Prince:  p.  191  (note). 

2  Bancroft:  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  pp.  271,  182.     Prince : 
p.  191  (note). 


III.]  To  Civil  Society.  97 

corruptions." *  At  the  re-organization  of  the  struc- 
ture of  the  colony  a  little  later,  when  the  home 
council  transferred  "the  government  of  the  colony 
to  those  who  should  inhabit  there,"  2  John  Win- 
throp  of  Groton  in  Sussex,  a  Churchman  and  a 
conformist,  though  a  Puritan,  was  elected  gov- 
ernor ;  and  he  soon  drew  around  him  a  large  num- 
ber of  like-minded  men,  whose  purpose  was,  not  to 
separate  from  either  Church  or  State,  but  to  realize 
the  Puritan  ideal  of  an  alliance  between  them. 3 
Under  the  fresh  impulse  given  by  Winthrop  and 
his  companions,  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay 
began  to  shape  the  destiny  of  New  England. 
Boston  was  chosen  as  the  seat  of  government; 
and  the  First  Church  of  Boston  was  organized  by 
electing  the  Rev.  John  Wilson  for  their  pastor, 
who,  while  submitting  to  the  imposition  of  their 
hands  as  a  solemn  setting  apart  for  his  work, 
refused  to  renounce  the  regular  orders  already 
received  by  him  in  England.4  Thus  it  was  that 
Puritanism  was  transplanted  to  these  shores,  and 

1  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  pp.  272,  273. 

2  Ibid.  p.  274. 

3  Bancroft:  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  pp.  277,  278.    Pal- 
frey: History  of  New  England,  vol.  i.  pp.  311-313. 

*  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  282. 


98  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

began  its  career  here,  not  as  a  separation  from 
the  English  Church,  but  as  a  movement  towards 
the  attainment  of  that  control  of  the  State  by  the 
"elect "  which  had  come  to  be  the  object  of  Puri- 
tan ambition. 

As  time  passed  on,  this  object  eclipsed  all 
others.  In  1631  the  Puritans  proceeded  to  enact, 
that  "no  man  for  the  time  to  come  should  be 
admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  body  politic  but 
such  as  are  members  of  some  of  the  churches 
within  the  limits  of  the  same."  "Thus,"  says 
Bancroft,  "  the  body  became  a  theocracy :  God 
himself  was  to  govern  his  people ;  and  the  '  saints 
by  calling,'  whose  names  an  immutable  decree 
had  registered  from  eternity  as  the  objects  of 
divine  love,  whose  election  had  been  visibly  man- 
ifested by  their  conscious  experience  of  religion 
in  the  heart,  whose  aim  was  confirmed  by  the 
most  solemn  compact  formed  with  heaven  and 
one  another  around  the  memorials  of  a  crucified 
Redeemer,  were,  by  the  fundamental  laws  of 
the  colony,  constituted  the  oracle  of  the  divine 
will."1  The  same  writer  also  calls  it  "the  reign 
of   the  visible    Church,  a    commonwealth    of   the 

1  Bancroft :  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  288. 


n  r.]  To  Civil  Society.  99 


chosen  people  in  covenant  with  God."  x  To  the 
more  complete  and  speedy  realization  of  this 
theocratic  purpose,  the  Puritans  proceeded  to 
sacrifice  the  religious  ties  that  bound  them  to  the 
mother  Church.  Whoever  opposed  or  refused  to 
fall  in  with  their  plans,  was  set  upon,  punished, 
and  expelled.  Roger  Williams,  one  of  the  purest 
and  most  gifted  souls  of  that  or  any  age,  was  igno- 
miniously  exiled  because  he  pleaded  for  liberty  of 
conscience.  Quakers  were  proscribed  and  ban- 
ished. Tender  and  gentle  Quaker  women  were 
scourged.2  Nonconformity  was  treated  as  treason  ; 
and  a  tyranny  more  inexorable  and  severe  than  that 
with  which  the  Establishment,  in  its  most  perse- 
cuting days,  had  visited  dissent,  was  set  up  by  the 
Puritans  in  New  England.  Whoever  will  study 
the  annals  ^of  the  New-England  colonies,  and  the 
long  lists,  both  of  Churchmen  and  nonconformists, 
who  suffered  for  conscience  in  early  colonial  days, 
will  see  that  Puritanism,  with  all  its  stern  virtues, 
was  not  the  friend,  but  the  foe,  of  liberty ;  and 
that  its  sons  and  daughters  passed  on  to  freedom, 
not  because,  but  in  spite,  of  their  creed. 

1  Bancroft:  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  288. 

2  George  Bishop:   New  England  Judged,  p.  50.     London,  1703. 


100  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

As  the  instinct  of  civil  liberty  was  strong 
enough  among  the  Puritans  themselves  to  over- 
come th,e  narrow  bigotry  of  their  religious  and 
political  opinions,  so  the  cause  of  religious  liberty 
was  gradually  relieved  of  its  worst  hinderances. 
Among  the  causes  which  contributed  to  this  result, 
a  prominent  place  must  be  assigned  to  the  influ- 
ence of  Roger  Williams  and  the  generous  spirits 
associated  with  him,  who,  from  the  secure  pro- 
tection afforded  by  the  little  commonwealth  of 
Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantation,  organ- 
ized and  directed  a  ceaseless  propagandism  against 
the  stern  policy  of  their  neighbors.  But  the 
most  important  was  the  gradual  decay  of  Puritan- 
ism itself,  the  exhaustion  of  its  energy,  the  spend- 
ing of  its  force.  Like  all  mere  schools  of  opinion, 
it  could  not  last.  Like  all  mere  human  systems, 
it  waxed  old,  and  was  ready  to  vanish  away. 
From  the  time  when  it  finally  separated  from  the 
Church's  order,  it  began  to  lose  its  consistency, 
and  to  evaporate  ift  early  spirit ;  and  it  eventually 
came  to  pass,  that  large  numbers  of  its  people 
re-acted  into  open  or  covert  Unitarianism,  or  other 
forms  of  liberalism  and  indifference.  At  the  time 
of  the  American  Revolution,  Puritanism,  as  such, 


IILJ  To  Civil  Society. 


101 


did  not  have  a  word  to  say  for  itself  in  the  coun- 
cils of  the  Continental  Congress.  The  shackles 
of  bigotry  had  already  fallen  from  the  people's 
minds.  Though  thejforms  of  theocratic  tyranny 
remained  long  unrepealed,  and  though  the  spirit 
of  it  still  manifests  itself  in  many  kinds  of  rest- 
less propagandism ;  yet  the  mass  of  the  New- 
England  people  grew  up  unconsciously  into  a 
better  freedom,  both  civil  and  religious,  than  their 
leaders  aimed  at,  and,  like  their  brethren  in  every 
colony,  builded  wiser  than  they  knew. 

The  influence  of  Quakerism  on  the  growth  and 
development  of  our  religious  liberty  is  a  subject 
of  surpassing  interest,  deserving  of  far  more  time 
and    space   than    can  be  here  accorded  to  it.     It 
must  suffice  to  point  out,  that  its  noblest  function 
was  amply  discharged  in  its  earliest  days.     Then 
it  was  the  apostleship  of  universal  toleration  ;  and 
it  retaught  the  great  lessons  of  the  gospel,  so  long 
obscured  or  forgotten,  of  the  mightiness  of  meek- 
ness, the   dignity   of   conscience,  the   royalty   of 
self-sacrifice.     Nothing   had    been    seen    in    this 
world  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  so  beautiful 
as  the  spirit  of  early  Quakerism,  as  manifested  in 
George  Fox  and  William  Penn.     There  was  pro- 


102  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

found  truth,  as  well  as  touching  sweetness,  in  the 
eulogy  which  the  latter  pronounced  when  he 
heard  of  the  former's  death  :  "  Many  Friends  have 
done  virtuously,  but  thou,  George,  hast  excelled 
them  all ! "  There  is  no  brighter  page  in  political 
history  than  that  which  tells  of  the  generous 
enterprise  of  William  Penn  in  founding  and  long 
sustaining  this  great  commonwealth  and  this 
noble  metropolis.  Long  may  it  be  before  his 
memory  shall  cease  to  be  venerated  here,  and  his 
quiet  spirit  to  pervade  the  social  and  public  life 
of  this  City  of  Brotherly  Love !  Yet,  when  we 
come  to  study  Quakerism  as  a  movement,  we  find 
that  it  contained  in  its  bosom  a  germ  of  subtle 
hostility  to  the  very  religious  liberty  which  it 
honestly  professed  to  serve.  It  contemned  the 
Church's  order,  and  renounced  her  sacraments. 
It  refused  to  acknowledge  any  external  religious 
authority.  It  insisted  that  all  that  was  reasonable 
in  objective  Christianity  was  capable  of  being 
embodied  in  the  institutions  of  civil  society,  and 
it  insisted  on  respecting  nothing  that  was  not  so 
embodied.  So  it  came  to  pass,  that  its  toleration 
was  seen  to  mean  little  more  than  a  philosophical 
forbearance ;   and  that  its  spirit  would  have  led, 


IIL]  To  Civil  Society. 


103 


if  uncontrolled,  to  a  contemptuous  sweeping  away 
of  all  religious  systems  whatever,— to  a  complete 
secularization  of  Christianity.  Such  a  tendency 
was  well  designed  to  abolish  the  Church,  but 
manifestly  it  could  not  have  been  trusted  to  estab- 
lish relations  between  it  and  civil  society. 

Lastly,  we  must  consider  briefly  the  effect   of 
Anglicanism,  meaning  by  this    term    the   attach- 
ment    of    colonial    Churchmen    to    the    English 
Establishment.     Undoubtedly,   the   first    attitude 
of   Anglicanism   in  Virginia   and    the    Carolinas, 
and  later  in  Maryland  and  New  York,  was  hostile 
to    religious    liberty.     No   word    of    excuse   shall 
ever   be   offered   by   me  for  the   proscription  for 
opinion's  sake  which  was  enacted    in    those   col- 
onies.    And  yet  it  cannot  be  denied,  that    such 
proscription  was  rather   political    than    religious, 
and   always    lacked    the    bitterness    of    religious 
fanaticism.     The    consequence  was,  that,  as  fast 
as  the   Anglican  colonists  outgrew  their  original 
subserviency   to   political   prerogative,  their  "pre- 
scriptive enactments  fell  into  complete  desuetude. 
Hence  it  was  that  Anglicanism  did  not  retard  the 
development  of  religious  liberty  to  the  same  ex- 
tent, and  in  the  same  way,  as  was  done  by  the 


104  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

stern  Puritanism  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  Allusion 
has  already  been  made  to  the  fact,  that  it  was  in 
Virginia  that  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  which  was 
the  first  authoritative  proclamation  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  in  any  land,  was  enacted ;  that  it 
was  written  by  George  Mason,  a  devout  commu- 
nicant of  the  Church ;  and  that  it  was  unani- 
mously adopted  by  the  Virginia  House  of  Bur- 
gesses, the  large  majority  of  whom  were  also 
Churchmen.  That  Churchmen  should  thus  take 
the  lead  was  no  accident.  It  was  easier  for  a 
Churchman  to  sever  the  alliance  between  religion 
and  civil  society,  because  to  him  Christianity 
stood  on  ground  altogether  different  from  that 
occupied  by  the  State.  He  believed  that  the 
Church  was  a  theocracy,  instituted  and  upheld  by 
a  living  King ;  and  that  Christianity,  being  the 
Church's  concern,  did  not  need  to  either  lean 
upon  or  to  control  the  State.  Having  come  to 
understand  that  the  State .  is  purely  secular,  while 
the  Church  is  altogether  spiritual ;  that  the  State 
is  altogether  human,  and  the  Church  altogether 
divine,  —  he  had  no  fears  that  either  the  one  or  the 
other  would  suffer  by  the  separation.  Therefore 
it  was  perfectly  natural  that  George  Mason,  the 


In-]  To  Civil  Society.  105 

Churchman,  should  have  written  the  Declaration 
which  was  the  true  charter  of  our  national  free- 
dom ;  and  there  was  a  natural  fitness  in  the  fact, 
that  the  Continental  Congress,  which  began  the 
work  of  achieving  our  freedom,  was  opened  with 
prayer  by  a  clergyman  of  the  Church,  and    that 
the  patriot  army  which  won  our  freedom  was  com- 
manded by  a  son  of  the  Church.     In  strict  consist- 
ency with  the  same  line  of   events,  the  Church, 
being   rescued    here   for   the    first    time    in    long 
centuries    from    the    burden    and    the  tyranny  of 
State    control,    began    a   gracious    career  in    this 
country  after  the  war,  and  gave  singular  evidence, 
by  the  promptness  and  completeness  with  which 
she  adapted    her  organization    to    the  framework 
of   the  State,  by  the    readiness    with    which    she 
took  up  her  great  work,  by  her  cordial  sympathy 
with  our  free  institutions,  and  by  a  consistent  pol- 
icy of  non-interference  with  all  questions  merely 
civic    and    political,    that   this   free    land    is    the 
Church's    home;    that    she    has    found    here    the 
liberty  for  which   her  children    long   had    sighed 
in  every  clime ;  and  that  she  is  able,  by  reason  of 
her  divinely  constituted   polity  and    her  unchan- 
ging order,  to  serve  the   commonwealth  without 


106  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

being  enslaved  by  it,  and  to  help  it  without  in- 
truding into  its  councils,  or^interfering  with  its 
power.  Hither,  then,  to  the  asylum  of  liberty, 
the  refuge  of  the  oppressed,  came  the  Church  of 
God.  Long  Pope-ridden  in  former  centuries,  long 
State-ridden  in  the  mother-land,  here  the  chains 
fell  from  her  limbs  ;  and  it  will  be  her  gracious 
part  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  to  testify  to  her 
sense  of  the  sacredness  of  her  own  freedom,  and 
of  the  freedom  of  the^State,  by  exemplifying  in 
her  history  the  answer  of  her  King,  who  said 
of  old,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."  "  My 
kingdom  is  not  from  hence." 

Historically,- then,  we  have  seen  that  the  rela- 
tion of  Christianity  to  civil  society  in  this  land  is 
not  the  relation  which  Puritanism  would  have 
chosen ;  nor  is  it  that  which  Quakerism  would 
have  preferred  ;  nor  yet  is  it  that  which  is  exem- 
plified in  the  English  Establishment.  The  actual 
outcome  has  been  perfect  religious  liberty.  And 
this  arises,  not  from  the  toleration  of  all  religions 
alike  by  a  State,  which,  in  tolerating,  assumes  to 
patronize  them  all ;  nor  does  it  arise  out  of  a  mere 
equilibrium  of  religious  or  sectarian  forces,  the 
prudent  refusal  of  the  State  to  interfere  among 


ni-]  To  Civil  Society. 


07 


warring  factions  ;  but  it  arises  out  of  the  very  con- 
ception   of   civil   society  as  a  social  compact  be- 
tween men  acting  in  obedience  to  the  moral  and 
social   instincts  of   their  nature,  and  deriving  all 
civil  authority  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
In  a  word,  it  is  because  the  State  is  here  placed 
upon  a  purely  secular  basis  that  all  alliance  with, 
or   patronage    of,  or   control    over  or  control  by, 
Christianity  as  a  spiritual  religion  is  impossible. 
In  order  to  change  this,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
remodel  the  State,  —  to  make  it  something  different 
from  what   it   now  is  ;   and   to   do  this  would   be 
to  utterly  overthrow  our  liberty.     I  believe  that 
the  relation  of  Christianity  to  civil  society  in  this 
country  is  the  ideal  relation  that  was  present  to 
the  thought  of  Jesus.     I   believe  that  all  Chris- 
tian history  has  been  leading  up  to  the  possibility 
of  the  establishment  of  this  relation.     I  believe 
that  it  is  being  more  and  more  realized  as  Chris- 
tians awake  to  the  fact  that  the  State  is  secular 
and  human,  and  that  the  Church  is  spiritual  and 
divine.     But  I  believe  that  there  are  tendencies 
abroad,   some  re-actionary  and   others  radical  in 
their  character,  which  gravely  threaten  to  suspend 
it,  if  not  to  destroy  it  altogether.     Let  us  recur  for 


108  The  Relation  of  CJiristianity  [Lect. 

a  moment  to  a  definition  of  that  relation  which 
has  been  suggested  already,  and  then  indicate 
some  of  the  dangers  which  threaten  it. 

Christianity,  then,  is  personal  loyalty  to  Christ 
as  a  divine  and  living  king,  manifested  in  the 
obedience  of  discipleship,  and  maintained  by  com- 
munion with  him  in  sacrament  and  prayer.  Into 
this  relation  with  Christ,  man  is  called  as  an  indi- 
vidual :  he  enters  into  it  by  faith  and  through 
grace.  By  it  he  is  recognized  as  the  only  ethical 
subject.  By  its  cult  he  is  individualized,  dignified, 
saved.  Yet  the  inevitable  effect  of  this  is,  to  bind 
him  more  closely  to  his  kind  ;  to  develop  his  social 
instinct  into  love  for  his  neighbor ;  and  to  enable 
him  to  find  his  own  completeness,  not  in  isolation 
from  his  fellows,  but  in  association  with  them,  — 
not  in  selfishness,  but  in  brotherly  kindness. 
Christianity,  then,  begins  with  Christ,  and,  through 
the  individual,  leads  back  to  him.  Civil  society, 
on  the  other  hand,  begins  with  the  individual.  It 
has  its  genesis  in  the  social  instincts  and  needs  of 
the  individual  man,  who,  combining  with  others  in 
obedience  to  those  instincts,  and  in  order  to  serve 
those  needs,  proceeds  to  organize  an  instrumen- 
tality which    shall   serve   the   common   purposes 


IIL3  To  Civil  Society. 


109 


which  he  and  his  associates  have  in  view ;  which 
instrumentality  he  calls  a  State,  or  government, 
or  civil    society.     But    this    civil    society,   having 
its  genesis  in  man,  and  deriving  its  authority  from 
him,  has    its    excellence   measured    solely   by  its 
capacity  to  serve  him,  and  finds  its  end  in  him. 
At    this    point,    then,    and    at    this    point    alone, 
namely,  in   the   individual,   Christianity  and  civil 
society    touch    each    other.     The    great    concern 
of   Christianity  is    the   culture    of   the  individual 
man,  the  graining  of   him  for  immortality.     But 
inasmuch   as    man    can,  by  reason    of   the  social 
characteristics   of   his   nature,   attain   to  his   true 
individuality  only  in  association  with  his  fellows, 
and  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  effect  of  Christianity  to 
enlarge  man's  social  instincts,  and  expand  as  well 
as  dignify  man's  social  nature,  Christianity  enters 
through  this  culture  into  the  most  intimate  rela- 
tions with  civil  society.     Nevertheless,  in  pursu- 
ing this  culture,  Christianity  is  not  only  protected 
by  its  origin  and  authority  from  all  control  by  the 
State,  but  it  is  prohibited,  by  the  very  character 
of   its    legitimate   influence,  from   exercising  any 
control  over  the  State.     For  to  control  the  State 
would  be  to  destroy  man's  political  nature,  and  to 


HO  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

defeat  the  impulses  towards  society  which  its 
design,  as  we  have  seen,  is  to  re-enforce,  and  not 
to  abrogate  or  destroy.  From  this  it  appears  that 
a  theocratic  Church  and  a  secular  State  mutually 
so  limit  each  other  as  to  forbid  the  interference  of 
each  with  the  other. 

There  are,  however,  three  tendencies  abroad 
which  aim  at  the  disturbance  of  this  adjustment, 
and  which,  in  the  event  of  the  complete  success 
of  any  one  of  them,  must  destroy  it  altogether. 
Our  limits  will  allow  us  only  to  refer  to  them  in 
the  briefest  way.  The  first  of  these  may  be  de- 
scribed as  the  surviving  political  spirit  of  Puri- 
tanism. We  have  seen  how  the  Puritans  at  first 
aimed  at  nothing  short  of  the  control  of  the 
State  by  the  Church,  the  subordination  of  the 
civil  to  the  ecclesiastical  power.  We  have  also 
seen  how  the  organized  movement  to  effect  this 
purpose  was  gradually  relaxed,  and  its  avowed 
objects  more  and  more  discredited,  until,  after  a 
long  struggle,  the  so-called  ecclesiastical  statutes 
of  some  of  the  New-England  States  were  re- 
pealed within  the  present  century.  Nevertheless, 
the  spirit  of  it  survives,  and  still  carries  on  a  rest- 
less propagandism  ;  the  object  being,  on  the  part 


hi.]  To  Civil  Society.  1 1 1 

of  various  religious  bodies,  to  secure  control  of 
the  State  as  such,  and  to  use  political  instrumen- 
talities on  the  one  hand  to  secure  religious  ends, 
while  religious  instrumentalities,  on  the  other,  are 
pledged  and  employed  to  gain  or  to  serve  political 
ends.  I  need  not  specify  instances  in  which  this 
has  been  attempted,  and  is  still  attempted.  I 
need  not  name  religious  bodies,  which,  by  their 
corporate  action,  have  undertaken  to  influence 
legislation  or  to  win  elections.  It  is  notorious 
that  such  things  have  been  done ;  so  that  there 
have  been  eras  in  our  history  when  it  seemed  that 
the  practical  politics  of  the  land  have  been  dic- 
tated by  ecclesiastical  conferences,  and  when  poli- 
ticians were  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  shaping 
their  utterances  and  their  actions  to  meet  the 
views  and  secure  the  support  of  large  and  influen- 
tial religious  denominations  which  had  undertaken 
such  dictatorship,  Of  such  interference  on  the 
part  of  religious  bodies,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say, 
that  it  tends  'to  the  utter  subversion  of  both  civil 
and  religious  liberty.  Not  only  is  it  a  violation 
of  the  only  relation  which  Christ  intended  should 
subsist,  as  we  have  seen,  between  Christianity  and 
civil  society,  but  its  inevitable  effect  must  be  to 


H2  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

eventually  abrogate  the  true  authority  of  both. 
By  thrusting  religion  into  politics,  the  true  idea 
of  the  Church  is  impaired.  By  substituting  reli- 
gious or  ecclesiastical  for  civil  reasons  of  State, 
the  true  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  in  politi- 
cal government  is  overthrown,  and  the  principle 
of  despotism  in  politics  is  practically"  inaugurated. 
The  final  result  must  be,  the  degradation  of  reli- 
gion and  the  depravation  of  politics,  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  true  character  of  the  Church  on  the 
one  hand,  and  of  the  State  on  the  other.  Against 
this  danger  it  behooves  the  Christian  citizen  of 
the  Republic  to  watch  with  jealous  care.  Already 
it  has  worked  much  evil,  and  it  portends  even 
greater  evil  in  the  future.  The  proper  spheres  of 
Church  and  State  are  distinct.  The  only  safety 
for  either  lies  in  the  maintenance  of  their  entire 
independence  and  separateness  each  from  the 
other.  The  moment  either  invades  the  province 
of  the  other,  it  becomes  a  wrongdoer,  no  matter 
what  the  alleged  motive  may  be.  In  a  word,. the 
true  function  of  Christian  statesmanship  is  the 
maintenance  of  the  relation  instituted  by  Christ 
between  Christianity  and  civil  society. 

The  second  movement  hostile  to  civil  and  reli- 


in.]  •       To  Civil  Society.  1 1 3 

gious  liberty  may  be  even  more  briefly  referred 
to,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  organized,  tangible, 
historic,  and  is  therefore  better  known.  It  may 
be  designated  as  Ultramontanism  or  Vaticanism 
in  politics  and  religion.  It  is  in  no  spirit  of  the 
mere  alarmist  that  I  point  out  the  enormous  dan- 
gers which  threaten  us  from  this  source.  No  ex- 
amination of  the  relation  between  Christianity 
and  civil  society  can  escape  the  portentous  fact, 
that,  in  this  land,  a  vast  multitude  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  are  committed  by  their  creed  to  a  denial 
of  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our 
government  is  founded,  and  are  pledged  by  the 
irreformable  teachings,  and,  indeed,  mandates,  of 
their  religion,  to  regard  as  the  ideal  State,  a  State 
that  has  been  made  practically  subject  to  a  for- 
eign and  irresponsible  ecclesiastical  power.  It  is 
but  fair  to  admit  that  this  was  not  always  so. 
Though  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  colonies  can- 
not be  said  to  have  played  any  part,  as  such,  in 
the  achievement  and  settlement  of  our  civil  and 
religious  liberty ;  yet  their  loyalty  to  the  cause  of 
the  country  could  not  be  doubted :  and  there  were 
no  more  devoted  patriots  than  some  of  the  wise, 
good,  and  great  men  among  their  number.     It  has 


114  The  Re/at  ion  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

been  well  pointed  out,  that  the  establishment  of 
religious  toleration  in  Maryland,  while  "it  was  a 
wise  measure,  for  which  the  two  Lords  Baltimore, 
father  and  son,  deserve  the  highest  honor,"  yet 
"  the  measure  was  really  defensive ;  and  its  main 
and  very  legitimate  purpose  plainly  was,  to  secure 
the  free  exercise  of  the  Roman-Catholic  reli- 
gion." x  It  is  also  evident,  that  the  enactment  of 
toleration  was  not  the  work  of  Roman  Catholics 
in  Maryland ;  since  toleration  was  provided  for  in 
the  charter  which  the  English  king  granted  them, 
and  the  colonial  Act  of  Toleration  was  passed  by 
a  legislative  body,  of  which  two-thirds  were  Prot- 
estants.2 It  is,  however,  undoubtedly  true,  we 
think,  that  the  spirit  which  for  a  long  time  ani- 
mated the  Roman  Catholics  of  this  country  was 
not  antagonistic  to  our  institutions.  Though, 
beyond  all  question,  the  attitude  of  the  Papacy, 
especially  since  the  publication  by  Boniface  VIII. 
of  his  famous  bull,  Unam  Sanctam,  had  been  hos- 
tile to  popular  liberty  and  the  independence  of. 
the  civil  power ;  yet  in  this  country  the  circum- 

1  Gladstone :  Vaticanism. 

2  Gladstone:  Rome  and  the  Newest  Fashions  in  Religion.  Preface, 
pp.  viii,  ix.  Also  Maryland  Not  a  Roman  Catholic  Colony,  by  E.  D.  N., 
P-  7- 


IILJ  To  Civil  Society. 


"5 


stances  favorable  to  freedom  had  been  sufficiently 
influential  to  keep  our  Roman-Catholic  population 
virtually  true  to  their  civic  allegiance.     But  since 
the  Vatican  Council,  and  the  promulgation  of  the 
Vatican  decrees,  all  this  is   changed.     Since  the 
decree   of   infallibility,   a    theory   of   civil    society 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  principles    upon 
which  our  institutions  are  founded  has  been  im- 
posed   by   irreformable     authority    upon    all    who 
belong  to  the  Roman  obedience ;  and  an  authori- 
tative declaration  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil  rights 
and  duties,  and  of  the  relation  between  them,\as 
been  made,  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  princi- 
ples and  policy  of  our  government.     To  the  reply, 
that  there  is  a  sense  in  which    the    Canon    Law 
may  be  interpreted  which  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  duties  of  American  citizenship,  it  is  enough 
to  answer,  that,  even  if  this  were  so,  the  power &to 
interpret  all  canons,  and  to  define  all  human  duty, 
is  now  declared,  as  an  article  of  faith,  to  be  lodged 
in  an  infallible,  irresponsible,  and  foreign  poten- 
tate, who  may,  if  he  so  please,  promulgate  to-mor- 
row,  as    his    predecessors    have   done   again    and 
again  in  time  past,  such  definitions  as  will  set  all 
who  accept  them  at  open  variance  with  civil  soci- 


Ii6  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

ety.  To  this  it  is  no  answer  to  say  that  he 
will  not  do  so ;  that  he  will  be  restrained  by  any 
considerations  of  truth,  of  justice,  or  by  any  influ- 
ence of  a  spiritual  and  supernatural  character. 
The  very  recognition  of  his  right,  of  his  power,  to 
do  this,  at  once  destroys  undivided  allegiance  to 
the  State,  and  transfers  the  true  and  ultimate 
authority  upon  which  society  rests  to  the  Roman 
curia.  This  is  the  only  tenable  theory  of  Vati- 
canism ;  and,  however  vociferously  it  may  be 
disavowed,  it  is  the  theory  upon  which  the  Roman- 
Catholic  hierarchy  in  this  country  are  obviously 
acting.1  Bishops  receiving  mission  and  jurisdic- 
tion immediately  from  Rome,  and  responsible 
directly  to  Rome  and  to  Rome  only,  assisted  by  a 
clergy  completely  subject  to  them  and  to  the 
Pope,  many  of  whom  are  aliens  by  birth  and  edu- 
cation, and  all  of  whom  are  separated  by  the  dis- 
cipline of  order  and  the  celibacy  of  their  lives 
from  the  domestic  life  of  the  people, — these  con- 
stitute the  agencies  by  which  Rome  is  able  to 
carry  on  any  kind  of  propagandism  in  this  country. 
When  we   add   to   this   consideration   the  further 

1  For  one  of   the  latest   evidences  of  this,  see  the  Pastoral  Letter, 
published  at  the  Fourth  Provincial  Council  of  Cincinnati,  March  19,  1S82. 


ni.]  To  Civil  Society.  117 

fact,  that  the  spiritual  control  which  Romanism  as 
a  system  exerts  over  the  consciences,  the  words, 
the  thoughts,  the  actions,  of  its  adherents  is  inde- 
feasible and  complete,  and  that  it  is  through  this 
control  that  the  Roman  pontiff  now  claims  the 
power  to  enforce  his  definitions  of  all  kinds  of 
human  duty,  it  is  seen  what  a  tremendous  engine 
of  power  is  here  provided,  and  how  portentous  of 
evil  it  would  be  to  our  free  country  unless  its 
influence  should  be  neutralized.  That  it  will  be 
neutralized  I  do  not  doubt.  But  it  must  be  by 
the  most  zealous  care  to  diffuse  intelligence ;  to 
build  up  true  religion,  especially  in  the  homes 
of  the  land ;  and  to  promote  the  promulgation  of 
right  views  of  the  relation  between  Christianity 
and  civil  society. 

Finally,  there  is  a  re-actionary  movement,  pro- 
voked in  great  degree  by  the  tendencies  already 
noted,  which,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  may  be 
called  secularism.  Unlike  English  secularism,  it 
is  not  disposed  to  enter  the  arena  of  theological 
debate ;  though  some  of  its  advocates  are  not  un- 
willing to  masquerade  on  the  lecture-platform  as 
theologasters  for  gain.  It  is  for  the  most  part  a 
quiet,  unavowed  purpose  on  the  part  of  politicians, 


n8  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

both  active  and  theoretical,  who  are  either  irreli- 
gious, or  indifferent  to  all  religion,  to  discredit  the 
Christian  Church,  to  limit,  by  unfriendly  legisla- 
tion, its  activities  and  agencies,  and  finally  dismiss 
it  with  contempt,  or  reduce  it  to  entire  subjection 
to  the  civil  power.  The  theory  on  which  it  pro- 
ceeds is,  that  the  Church  is  to  be  tolerated  only 
because  it  serves,  or  if  it  serves  social  and  political 
order.  It  is  not  denied,  that  it  may  be  useful  to 
amuse  the  ignorant  and  restrain  the  vicious ;  but 
it  is  insisted,  that,  in  doing  this,  it  only  wins  a 
right  to  be  tolerated  by  the  State  as  useful  to  it, 
unless,  indeed,  it  can  be  made  a  mere  department 
of  the  State,  to  "  evolve  its  ethics ;  •  in  which  case 
it  is  gravely  proposed  to  take  it  into  the  pay  of 
the  State,  to  subsidize  it,  and  control  it  altogether. 
It  is  pointed  out,  that  religion  under  our  present 
voluntary  system  is  altogether  too  expensive. 
The  State  could  maintain  a  clergy  of  its  own  at 
half  the  cost.  It  is  estimated,  that,  in  this  coun- 
try, religion  costs  the  people  one  dollar  and  ten 
cents  per  capita  per  annum  ;  whereas  in  France, 
where  the  clergy  are  supported  by  the  State,  cleri- 
cal salaries  are  very  much  smaller,  and  the  tax 
on  the  people  very  much  less.      This  and  other 


m-J  To  Civil  Society. 


119 


reasons  combine  to  strengthen  the  movement  to 
which -reference  is  made.1     No  doubt,  there  is  as 
yet  a  lack  of  unity  and   organization  among  its 
adherents :  but  they  are  all  animated  by  a  growing 
hostility  to  the   Church,  and   to  the  clergy  as  a 
class ;  and  they  do  not  lack  opportunities  to  make 
their  power  felt.     The   character  of 'the   danger 
from  this  source  cannot  be  overstated.     It  is  the 
most  remorseless,  the  most  unsparing,  the  most 
cruel,  political  movement  that  has  been  instituted 
in  modern  times.     If  it  should  succeed,  it  could 
not  crush  out  Christianity,  of  course ;  but  it  would 
convert  the  State  into  a  despotism  the  most  intol- 
erable.    The  extent  of  the  danger  is  easily  under- 
estimated.    Unless  I  greatly  mistake  the  signs  of 
the  times,  it  will   soon  appear  to  be  one  of  the 
gravest  perils  of  our  national  political  life.     Never- 
theless, the  remedy  is  easily  discernible.     The  evils 
against  which  it  is  re-actionary  must  be  avoided.2 
The  pretensions  of  Puritanism  and  Vaticanism  in 

1  See  A  Critical  Review  of  American  Politics,  by  Charles  Reemelin, 
p.  326  et  seq.  t 

2  The  reader  is  referred,  for  an  illustration  of  the  dangers  and  evils 
here  pointed  out,  to  a  recent  debate  in  the  French  Chambers  between  the 
Bishop  of  Angers  and  M.  Roche,  reported  in  The  Guardian  newspaper  of 
Nov.  15,  1882. 


120  The  Relation  of  Christianity    [Lect.  hi.] 


politics  must  be  discredited  and  overthrown. 
The  political  preacher  and  the  political  priest 
should  be  relegated  by  public  opinion  to  their 
proper  duties.  The  same  public  opinion  should 
be  taught  to  utterly  discredit  and  frown  down  all 
interference  with  religious  liberty  and  the  rights 
of  conscience  on  the  hustings  and  in  the  legisla- 
ture. If  it  be  asked,  Who  shall  undertake  to  do 
this  for  religion  and  the  State  ?  may  I  not  answer, 
Churchmen  will  undertake  to  do  their  part  towards 
it?  Churchmen  occupy  the  vantage-ground,  and 
a  large  responsibility  rests  upon  them  in  this  as 
in  all  things.  For,  if  we  have  reached  right  con- 
clusions in  the  matter,  whatever  limitations  other 
religious  bodies  labor  under,  American  Church- 
men are  free  to  hold  true  views  of  the  relations 
between  Christianity  and  civil  society. 


LECTURE   IV. 

EDUCATION. 


LECTURE   IV. 

EDUCATION. 

"And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you:  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  — 
St.  Matthew  xxviii.  18-20. 

WHEN  we  consider  how  completely  our  Lord 
committed  his  work  to  his  apostles,  leaving 
them  to  carry  out  in  history  and  time  his  mag- 
nificent and  far-reaching  purposes,  we  reason- 
ably expect  to  find,  among  his  parting  injunctions 
to  them,  some  indication  of  the  relation  which 
his  Church  was  intended  to  sustain  to  the  various 
conditions  by  which  it  was  to  be  surrounded. 
We  are  prepared,  therefore,  to  see,  in  what  has 
been  well  called  the  great  commission,  the  out- 
line, at  least,  of  a  general  plan  that  was  to  guide 
the  Church's  activity  in  all  ages  and  lands.  It  is 
evident,  indeed,  upon  a  little  reflection,  that  very 

much  more  than  a  bare  outline  is  here  suggested. 

123 


124  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

It  is  quite  certain,  that,  however  brief  and  practi- 
cal the  apostolical  commission  was  as  a  missionary- 
mandate  and  working-charter,  it  was  pregnant 
with  a  wealth  of  meaning  that  could  be  fully  dis- 
closed to  human  thought,  only  in  the  developments 
of  history.  We  may  well  believe  that  the  "infi- 
nite abundance"  of  that  meaning  has  not  yet  been 
fully  revealed  ;  but  enough  has  been  already  made 
known  to  exemplify  how  clearly  and  completely 
all  the  questions  which  have  emerged  along  the 
line  of  the  Church's  work  were  present  in  the 
beginning  to  the  thought  of  the  Church's  Founder. 
It  was  as  the  King  and  Sovereign  Ruler  of  all 
things  that  he  spoke,  investing  his  agents  and 
apostles  with  complete  and  plenary  authority ; 
but  it  was  also  as  the  great  statesman  of  human- 
kind, as  one  who  took  note  of  the  conditions  that 
were  before  him,  and  who  knew  how  to  adjust 
his  agencies  to  the  work  which  they  were  to  per- 
form, and  to  the  circumstances  by  which  they 
were  to  be  surrounded.  Regarding  the  apostolic 
commission,  then,  as  the  charter  of  the  Church's 
work,  we  find  a  suggestion  of  the  various  employ- 
ments of  which  that  work  was  to  be  composed ; 
and   among   these   it   is   here  indicated  that  the 


IV.]  To  Civil  Society.  125 

Church  was  intended  to  discharge  an  educational 
or  pedagogic  function  towards  the  nations,  and  to 
enter  into  a  relation  the  most  intimate  and  influ- 
ential with  civil  society. 

There  is  a  characteristic  connection  between 
our  Lord's  assumption  of  universal  power,  and 
the  missionary  and  pedagogic  mandate  which  he 
based  upon  it.  He  still  maintained  his  renuncia- 
tion of  a  kingdom  of  force.  He  persisted  in  his 
high  resolve,  that  his  kingdom  should  not  be  of 
this  world,  even  while  he  proclaimed  that  all 
power,  both  in  heaven  and  earth,  had  been  given 
to  him.  In  the  fulness  of  that  power  he  sent  his 
apostles  forth,  not  to  reign,  nor  to  fight ;  not  to 
oppose  force  to  force  ;  not  to  subjugate  or  destroy  ; 
but  to  disciple,  to  teach,  to  win  men,  and  trans- 
form them  by  nurture  and  grace.  It  seemed  a 
strange  11011  sequitur  to  the  philosophic  and  civic 
thought  of  that  age,  and  men  have  hardly  yet 
learned  clearly  to  discern  the  force  of  the  divine 
logic  upon  which  the  "therefore"  of  the  great 
commission  is  founded.  It  was  because  all  power, 
both  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  had  been  given  to 
him :  it  was  because  he  spoke,  not  merely  as  man, 
but  as  God,  that  he  persisted  in  the  day  of  his 


126  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

exaltation,  as  in  the  time  of  his  humiliation,  in  the 
divine  method  of  winning  men,  discarding  and 
discrediting  authority  and  force  as  of  no  real 
value  in  the  kingdom  of  souls.  Certainly,  never 
man  spake  like  this  man.  For  man,  in  the  day  of 
his  power,  has  thought  it  royal  to  exercise  domin- 
ion and  enforce  authority :  but  Jesus  said,  All 
power  is  mine ;  therefore  go  ye  and  disciple  the 
nations,  baptizing  them  ;  go  teach  them  :  and  this 
my  work  and  purpose  I  will  also  participate  in 
as  I  lead  and  direct  you ;  for  I  will  be  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  terms  of  the  apostolic  commission  indicate 
that  the  Christian  Church  has  a  mission  to  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
clearly  implied  that  the  Church  was  not  intended 
to  operate  directly  upon  the  nations  as  such,  nor 
to  enter  into  alliance  with  them,  or  lord  it  over 
them.  For,  when  we  come  to  inquire  how  the 
apostles  were  to  disciple  the  nations,  we  find  that 
it  was  to  be  done  through  the  nurture,  the  disci- 
pline, the  teaching,  which,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  could  be  applied  only  to  the  individuals  of 
which  nations  are  composed.  Christian  disciple- 
ship  cannot  be  other  than  personal.     It  is  only  as 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  127 

a  free  and  self-determining  personality  that  a  man 
can  become  a  disciple  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  We 
have  seen,  that  it  was  one  of  the  distinguishing 
characteristics  of  the  plan  of  Christ  that  he  rec- 
ognized and  appealed  to  the  individuality  of  man. 
This  characteristic  was  not  obscured  in  the  terms 
of  the  apostolic  commission.  One  by  one  the 
souls  were  to  be  baptized.  One  by  one  they  were 
to  be  taught  to  observe  the  things  which  he  com- 
manded, and  in  this  way  the  nation  was  to  be 
discipled.  For  man,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  social, 
or,  as  Aristotle  terms  him,  a  "political,"  being. 
He  is  endowed  with  a  strong  impulse  to  associate 
with  his  fellows  for  the  attainment  of  certain  defi- 
nite political  objects.  The  association  which  ac- 
tually results  from  the  operation  of  this  common 
impulse  constitutes  the  nation,  the  State.  The 
way,  then,  to  reach  the  nation,  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  apostolical  commission,  is  through 
the  constituent  elements  out  of  which  it  is  organ- 
ized, and  along  the  lines  of  its  organization.  Dis- 
ciple the  men,  the  souls,  baptizing  them.  Teach 
them  to  observe  the  things  which  Christ  com- 
manded. In  this  way  the  nations  shall  be  disci- 
pled,  and  made  the  kingdoms  of  God  and  of  his 


128  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

Christ.  It  is  most  interesting  to  note,  that  the 
very  terms  of  the  apostolic  commission  are  incon- 
sistent with  any  other  theory  of  civil  society  than 
that  which  is  here  adopted.  If  the  State  were 
organized  from  above,  and  not  from  beneath,  then 
the  Church's  operations  would  have  been  directed 
primarily  to  the  nation  at  such,  or  at  least  to  the 
rulers  thereof.  It  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
disciple  the  king,  or  the  head  of  the  people,  first, 
leaving  the  rest  to  follow  as  the  result  of  govern- 
mental influence  and  authority.  In  point  of  fact, 
this  method  has  been  attempted,  in  more  than  one 
instance  of  missionary  enterprise,  as  the  natural 
result  of  a  false  theory  of  civil  society.  More 
than  one  despotic  ruler  has  committed  the  blun- 
der of  attempting  to  impose  Christianity  upon  his 
people  by  royal  mandate,  or  by  the  influence  of 
the  royal  example  ;  but,  in  every  such  instance,  a 
speedy  apostasy  has  demonstrated  the  falsity  of 
the  method  and  of  the  civic  theory  upon  which 
it  was  founded.  The  apostolic  commission,  how- 
ever, points  out  a  more  excellent  way.  Disciple 
the  nations,  it  says  in  effect,  by  the  Christian 
nurture  and  Christian  teaching  of  individual  souls. 
Direct  your  efforts  to  the  source  of  civic  authority 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  129 

and  power.  Translate  the  souls  of  men  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Make  the  men  who  compose 
society  to  be  more  and  more  what  Christ  would 
have  them  to  be.  Stand  beside  the  fountains  of 
national  life,  and  keep  them  pure.  In  this  way- 
fashion  the  characters  of  men,  create  public  opin- 
ion, transform  and  transfigure  the  ideals  by  which 
men  are  chiefly  led.  Nay,  transform  and  trans- 
figure men  themselves,  so  that  their  social  and 
political  instincts  and  impulses  may  take  the  right 
direction,  and  pursue  the  right  course.  In  this 
way  the  nations  shall  be  discipled,  and  brought  to 
acknowledge  him  to  whom  all  power  has  been 
given  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  influence  exerted 
by  Christianity  upon  civil  society  would  be  inti- 
mate and  profound  in  precise  proportion  to  the 
completeness  with  which  the  Christian  Church 
performs  the  duty  which  is  here  indicated.  And 
in  a  country  like  ours,  whose  government  derives 
its  authority,  not  only  in  abstract  theory,  but  in 
actual  fact,  from  the  popular  will,  the  obvious 
method  of  attempting  to  shape  the  character 
of  society,  and  to  disciple  the  nation,  is  to  apply 
Christian    influence    to    the   very    source    of    the 


130  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

nation's  power  and  authority ;  that  is,  to  the  wills 
and  consciences  of  the  people  themselves.  It 
becomes,  therefore,  a  matter  of  the  greatest  prac- 
tical importance,  to  inquire  how  Christian  influ- 
ence may  best  be  exerted  in  the  nurture,  the 
training,  the  education,  of  a  people.  In  a  word, 
we  are  brought,  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry,  to 
one  of  the  most  important  practical  questions  of 
the  day,  which  is,  What  is  the  relation  of  Chris- 
tianity to  civil  society  in  the  matter  of  education  ? 
If  we  use  the  word  education  in  its  broadest 
sense,  it  indicates  the  most  comprehensive  and 
the  most  precious  of  all  human  interests.  Every 
human  being  has  an  indefeasible  right  to  be  edu- 
cated ;  that  is,  to  have  his  faculties  developed,  to 
be  put  in  possession  of  his  powers,  and  to  have 
the  use  of  himself  at  his  best.  And,  in  order  that 
this  right  might  be  realized  by  each  soul,  God 
himself  has  instituted  a  sacred  economy,  which 
he  founded  upon  the  most  profound  and  cogent 
instincts  of  humanity, — which  is  the  economy  of 
the  family.  For  this  he  instituted  marriage  in 
the  very  beginning  of  human  history.  Nay, 
in  the  very  act  of  creation,  and  in  delivering  to 
man  his  viceregal  sovereignty  over  the  world,  God 


IV.]  To  Civil  Society.  131 

instituted  marriage,  and  sanctified  it  as  the  means 
by  which  man  was  at  once  to  realize  and  perpetu- 
ate his  dominion.  For  this  cause  he  created  man 
male  and  female,  and  "blessed  them,  and  said 
unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish 
the  earth,  and  subdue  it."  For  this  cause  he 
ordained  the  inviolability  and  indissolubility  of 
marriage ;  decreeing  that  a  man  shall  "  leave  his 
father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his 
wife :  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh."  Undoubtedly, 
marriage  is  a  divine  mystery,  whose  ultimate  basis 
lies  among  the  secret  things  that  belong  to  the 
Lord  our  God.  But  it  is  also  a  vocation.  "  When 
God  created  mankind  male  and  female,  he  thereby 
announced,  and,  as  it  were,  impressed  upon  our 
nature,  the  fact  that  it  was  his  will  that  we  should 
marry.  Hence  we  are  justified  in  saying  that 
marriage  is  a  duty,  and  the  most  universal  duty 
incumbent  on  us."  '  And,  among  the  obligations 
which  impose  the  duty  of  marriage  on  mankind, 
none  is  more  cogent  than  this,  that  in  this  way 
God  has  intended  to  provide,  not  only  for  the  per- 
petuity, but  for. the  education,  of  the  race.  The 
most  lofty  and  dignified  use  of  the  family  is  the 

1  Luthardt :  Moral  Truths  of  Christianity,  p.  1 14. 


132  The  Rclatio?i  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

fit  nurture  and  education  of  the  children  given 
to  wedded  love,  and  the  great  and  sacred  respon- 
sibility of  educating  such  children  rests  primarily 
and  by  divine  enactment  upon  the  parents.  It  is 
the  design  of  our  heavenly  Father,  that  every 
child  born  into  the  world  should  spend  its  nascent 
years  in  the  calm  peace  of  a  holy  home,  protected, 
nourished,  and  prepared  for  the  duties  and  respon- 
sibilities of  life,  by  parental  care.  When  this 
is  borne  in  mind,  we  realize  how  precious  the 
sanctity  of  the  home-life  is,  and  how  inviolable 
those  safeguards  ought  to  be  by  which  Providence 
has  surrounded  it.  We  realize  why  it  is  that  God 
has  decreed  that  marriage,  once  consummated, 
should  be  indissoluble  except  by  death.  For 
marriage  was  designed,  in  the  divine  economy, 
not  merely,  nor  even  chiefly,  for  the  ease  or  com- 
fort of  the  wedded  pair,  but  for  the  maintenance 
and  education  of  their  children.  The  home  is  the 
sanctuary  appointed  by  God,  within  whose  sacred- 
ness  immortal  souls  appear  as  visitants  from  the 
skies,  and  within  whose  order  and  peace  such 
souls  are  to  be  nurtured  and  trained  for  a  useful 
passage  through  time,  and  a  worthy  return  to 
immortality.     He,  therefore,  who  invades  its  sane- 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  133 

tity,  or  disturbs  its  peace,  is  not  only  a  trans- 
gressor of  the  divine  law,  but  is  also  guilty  of 
the  greatest  conceivable  crime  against  society  at 
its  very  source.  How  monstrous,  then,  are  the 
laws  which  legalize  confusion  and  disorder  in  the 
family,  by  loosening  the  bonds  of  matrimony,  and 
permitting  the  wayward  passions  of  men  to  break 
up  an  economy  which  God  intended  should  be 
indissoluble ! 

The  family,  then,  is  the  divinely  appointed 
institution  for  the  education  of  the  human  race ; 
and  the  duty  of  educating  every  child  rests  prima- 
rily upon  its  parents.  This  obligation  preceded 
the  establishment  of  civil  society,  and  was  in  full 
force  long  before  Christianity  began  its  work 
among  men.  It  is  important  for  us  to  remember, 
that  education  has  been  intrusted  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, neither  to  the  Church  nor  to  the  State, 
but  to  the  family,  —  to  an  institution  with  which 
the  State  cannot  rightly  interfere,  and  which  the 
Church  must  sanctify  and  protect.  Hence  the 
right  of  every  child  to  an  adequate  education  is 
not  distinctively  either  a  political  or  a  Christian 
right,  however  intimately  both  Christianity  and 
civil  society  may  be  related  to  it :  and,  conversely, 


134  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  duty  of  affording  an  education  to  every  child 
is  not  distinctively  a  political  or  a  Christian  duty ; 
since  the  duty  was  imposed,  and  the  means  for  it 
provided,  antecedent  to  the  formation  of  society 
and  the  institution  of  Christianity.  It  is  impor- 
tant for  us  to  remember,  then,  at  the  outset,  that 
neither  the  State  nor  the  Church  has  an  original 
function  in  the  work  of  education  proper,  but 
that,  in  so  far  as  they  have  relation  to  it,  they 
must  both  enter  into  such  relation  through  the 
family. 

The  relations  sustained  by  the  State  and  by  the 
Church  to  education,  however,  are  essentially 
different,  as  we  shall  see,  —  so  different  that  it  is 
quite  impossible  to  co-ordinate  them.  Whatsoever 
responsibility  and  whatsoever  authority  the  State 
has  in  the  matter  of  education  are  wholly  dele- 
gated, and  are  limited  by  the  terms  of  the  com- 
pact or  arrangement  by  which  such  delegation 
is  effected.  Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  ap- 
proaches education,  as  it  does  all  human  interests, 
from  above,  and  with  a  mission,  not  to  usurp 
its  function,  or  set  it  aside,  but  to  inform,  to 
spiritualize,  to  complete  it.  Christianity  is  related 
to  education  as  an  influence  from  another  world 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  135 

directed  to  the  whole  domain  of  human  well-be- 
ing; while  the  State  is  related  to  education,  only  in 
so  far  as  education  may  be  intrusted  to  its  super- 
vision and  control.  And  it  should  not  be  forgot- 
ten, that  such  supervision  and  control  can  be  made 
to  extend  to  only  a  small  part  of  education.  For 
more  is  learned  by  the  child  at  home  than  at 
school :  the  most  important  part,  not  only  of  the 
knowledge  acquired  by  him,  but  of  the  develop- 
ment of  his  faculties,  the  appropriation  of  his 
powers,  takes  place  under  the  manifold  influences 
of  parental  authority,  parental  example,  parental 
affection,  and  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  home.1 
Nevertheless,  there  is  a  department  of  mental  cul- 
ture and  discipline,  the  supervision  and  direction 
of  which  can  be  wisely  delegated  to  others.  In 
other  words,  teachers  may  be  wisely  employed, 
whose  attainments  and  special  training  enable 
them  to  secure  the  best  results  in  such  culture 
and  discipline ;  the  teachers  so  employed  being 
merely  the  agents  of  the  parents,  and  deriving 
their  authority  from  them.  In  order  to  secure 
the  most  efficient  teachers,  it  is  in  the  natural 
course  of  things  for  several  families  to  combine ; 

1  Compare  Luthardt,  Moral  Truths  of  Christianity,  p.  144  et  seq. 


136  The  Relation  of  CJiristianity  [Lect. 

in  which  case  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  teacher, 
as  the  agent  of  all  such  families,  would  have 
authority  only  in  those  matters  which  all  united 
in  intrusting  to  him.  The  case  is  not  at  all 
altered,  when,  by  civil  compact  or  enactment,  the 
citizens  of  a  commonwealth  delegate  to  the  State 
the  duty  of  sustaining  and  directing  some  part  of 
their  educational  work.  In  this  case  the  State 
is  simply  the  agent  of  the  families  composing 
it,  and  has  no  direct  authority  and  no  immediate 
responsibility  beyond  what  is  thus  delegated.  It 
is  true,  that  in  a  representative  commonwealth 
like  one  of  ours,  in  which  popular  suffrage  is  the 
appointed  means  of  delegating  public  authority, 
it  is  not  the  family  as  such,  but  the  citizen  at 
the  polls,  who  creates  and  controls  the  agencies 
of  public-  education.  Nevertheless,  the  citizen, 
in  this  case  especially,  and  in  every  case  in  some 
sort,  is  the  representative  of  the  family  and  home; 
each  citizen  being  in  the  natural  order  the  head 
of  a  family.  The  duty,  the  responsibility,  the 
authority,  of  the  State,  then,  in  public  education, 
are  not  original,  but  derived,  and  are  limited 
strictly  to  those  things  which  by  agreement  have 
been  delegated  to  public  control. 


IV.]  To  Civil  Society.  137 

In  saying  this,  it  is  not  denied  that  education  is 
a  matter  of  public  concern.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
insisted  that  it  is  a  matter  of  paramount  public 
concern  that  the  people  of  a  free  State  should  all 
be  educated.  Nevertheless,  it  is  also  insisted  that 
the  obligation  to  this  rests  primarily,  not  on  the 
State  as  such,  but  on  those  who  make  and  control 
the  State ;  namely,  on  the  citizens  in  their  domes- 
tic relations,  who  compose  the  body  politic.  Be- 
cause man  is  a  social  and  political  being,  he  is 
under  obligation,  not  only  to  organize  civil  society, 
but  to  make  it  as  efficient  as  possible;  and,  in 
order  to  this,  he  is  under  obligation  to  promote 
the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  those  upon  whose 
intelligence  and  virtue  the  well-being  of  the  State 
must  depend.  There  are,  therefore,  manifold  con- 
siderations which  require  the  citizen,  and  the  State 
through  him,  to  promote  the  diffusion  of  knowl- 
edge, the  increase  of  virtue,  the  development  of 
intelligence,  among  the  people.  In  doing  this, 
however,  the  citizen  must  be  content  to  employ 
the  State,  only  in  such  a  way  as  may  be  consist- 
ent with  the  economy  of  civil  society.  In  educa- 
tional as  in  other  matters,  the  State  ought  not  to 
exceed  or  to  abuse  its  delegated  powers.     We  have 


138  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

seen  that  all  its  "just  powers  are  derived  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed,"  and  that  it  has  no 
divine  right  or  inherent  authority  to  transgress  or 
transcend  this  limitation.  Much  less  may  it  do 
so  in  this  matter,  which  was  primarily  committed 
to  another  institution  ;  namely,  the  family. 

The  question  as  to  whether  our  public  schools 
have  any  duty  or  authority  in  regard  to  religious 
culture  or  instruction,  is,  first  of  all,  a  question  of 
fact.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  to  be 
denied,  I  suppose,  that  no  such  duty  or  authority 
could  be  delegated  to  the  State  in  the  present 
divided  condition  of  religious  opinion  among  our 
people.  To  the  further  question,  whether  such 
duty  and  authority  ought  to  be  so  delegated,  it 
seems  to  me  that  a  negative  answer  must  be  re- 
turned. To  teach  religion,  or  to  promote  reli- 
gious culture,  does  not  fall  within  the  province  of 
civil  society.  To  discharge  these  functions  the 
Church  of  Christ  was  instituted,  and  the  Church 
can  neither  lay  down  its  work  nor  delegate  its 
responsibility.  It  was  to  the  Church,  and  not  to 
the  State,  that  Christ  said,  Go  teach  men  to 
observe  the  things  which  I  have  commanded ;  and, 
as  Churchmen,  we  are  not  at  liberty,  as  it  seems 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  139 

to  me,  to  intrust  the  State,  or  the  public  schools 
under  the  State,  with  any  authority  in  the  matter 
of  religious  instruction.  Not  only  would  the  dele- 
gation of  such  authority  be  impracticable,  but  it 
would  be  altogether  unwise  and  undesirable. 
Christian  statesmanship,  especially  in  this  land, 
should  not  be  slow  to  see  that  such  a  procedure 
would  be  based  on  a  principle  altogether  at  vari- 
ance with  the  philosophy  of  civil  society,  and 
which,  if  accepted,  and  carried  out  to  its  logi- 
cal conclusion,  would  speedily  overthrow  public 
liberty.  For,  if  the  State  can  be  invested  with 
authority  to  teach  religion  in  the  schools,  it  must 
be  empowered  to  determine  what  religion  it  will 
teach.  If  it  can  be  invested  with  the  authority  to 
shape  religious  convictions,  it  may  also  have  the 
power  to  impose  all  opinions.  To  say  nothing  of 
the  transfer  of  the  Church's  function  to  the  State, 
and  the  virtual  abrogation  of  the  Church,  in  either 
case  there  would  be  a  complete  obliteration  of  the 
rights  of  conscience,  a  complete  destruction  of 
personal  liberty,  and  the  erection  of  a  tyranny  as 
complete  as  has  yet  been  accomplished  in  history. 
It  is  important  to  remember,  that  the  committal 
of  educational  interests  to  State  control  is  simply 


140  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

a  conventional  expedient.  It  is  done  because  it 
seems  best  to  the  body  politic,  on  the  whole,  that 
it  should  be  done.  The  advantages  of  it  are  un- 
deniable, but  there  are  also  serious  disadvantages. 
Among  the  disadvantages  is  the  unavoidable  ex- 
clusion of  Christian  worship  and  corresponding 
direct  religious  influences  from  the  public  school. 
Certainly,  no  Christian  man  can  be  entirely  con- 
tent with  any  system  of  education  in  which  Chris- 
tian worship  is  not  possible.  Beyond  all  doubt, 
the  ideal  school  is  the  school  which  shall  be 
entirely  open  on  all  sides  to  a  genuine  Christian 
influence,  to  which  Christianity  is  related  as  a 
pervading  spirit,  affecting  the  children  through 
worship,  through  discipline,  through  the  exam- 
ple, the  character,  the  unconscious  grace,  of  the 
teacher.  The  ideal  common  school,  in  other 
words,  is  the  Christian  school, — the  school  that  is 
Christian,  not  by  virtue  of  its  dogmatic  teaching, 
nor  by  virtue  of  any  special  ecclesiastical  control, 
but  by  virtue  of  its  being  pervaded,  through  wor- 
ship and  discipline,  in  tone  and  character,  by  a 
genuine  Christian  spirit.  Now,  it  is  undeniable 
that  these  advantages  cannot  be  secured  by  civil 
enactment ;  and  they  cannot  be  secured  by  State 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  141 


control.  And  it  is  certainly  most  gratifying  in 
every  way,  that  there  should  be  so  strong  a  move- 
ment on  foot,  especially  among  Churchmen,  to 
establish  and  maintain,  wherever  it  is  practicable, 
parochial  and  other  religious  schools.  With  such 
schools,  however,  our  present  inquiry  has  nothing 
to  do.  We  are  now  concerned  to  inquire  how 
Christianity  is  related  to  civil  society  in  regard  to 
the  common  and  necessarily  secular  schools  of  the 
country. 

The  question  remains,  then,  Is  it  safe,  is  it 
right,  to  intrust  the  education  of  our  children  un- 
der any  circumstances  to  schools  which  must  of 
necessity  refrain  from  religious  teaching?  To  this 
I  believe  an  affirmative  answer  may  be  returned, 
provided  the  legitimate  influence  of  Christianity 
be  otherwise  brought  to  bear  upon  education.  To 
the  question  whether  this  is  possible  under  a  sys- 
tem of  public  education  that  is  purely  secular,  I 
answer,  that  I  believe  it  to  be  entirely  possible, 
provided  the  Christian  Church  will  recognize  its 
real  responsibility,  and  do  its  whole  duty.  It  is 
not  a  question  whether  Christian  influence  shall 
be  withdrawn  or  banished  from  the  nurture  of  the 
young.     The  question  is,  whether  the  young  can 


142  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

be  adequately  nurtured  and  instructed  in  religion 
unless  the  school  in  which  they  spend  a  few  hours 
each  day  be  enlisted  in  that  particular  service. 
Surely  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  family  and 
the  Church  should  delegate  their  religious  duty, 
or  abdicate  their  spiritual  responsibility,  to  the 
school;  and,  in  case  this  is  not  done,  it  surely  is 
possible  that  Christianity  may  still  reach  and  in- 
fluence the  education  of  the  child  through  the 
agencies  of  Christian  nurture  and  the  ordinances 
of  religion  in  the  Church  and  in  the  home. 

I  am  aware  that  the  question  here  proposed  is  a 
large,  and  in  many  respects  a  difficult,  one.  I 
cannot  hope  to  consider  all  the  issues,  both  of  fact 
and  of  opinion,  that  have  arisen  along  the  course 
of  this  vexed  controversy.  All  I  can  hope  to  do 
is,  to  indicate  the  principles  that  may  lead,  as  I 
trust,  to  its  solution.  Perhaps  we  shall  gain  a 
more  definite  idea  of  the  real  issues  involved  if 
we  recur  for  a  moment  to  a  proposition  that  has 
been  already  advanced.  We  have  seen  that  the 
obligation  to  educate  the  young  is  older  than 
Christianity  ;  that  Christianity  did  not  create  this 
obligation,  but  found  it  in  full  force,  —  a  divinely 
appointed  institution,  namely,  the  family,  having 


IV.]  To  Civil  Society.  143 

been  established  to  discharge  it.  To  educate  the 
human  race  in  this  sense  was  not  one  of  the  char- 
acteristic duties  of  the  Christian  Church ;  though 
beyond  all  question  it  was  to  be  the  Church's 
mission  to  re-enforce,  encourage,  and  exalt  the 
agencies  that  had  already  been  provided  for  that 
purpose.  It  is  to  be  noted,  moreover,  that  of  the 
two  different  terms  that  are  translated  "  teach," 
"teaching,"  in  our  version,  the  first  means  more 
properly  to  "  disciple,"  to  bring  to  discipleship, 
to  make  disciples  of ;  and  this,  as  we  have  seen, 
has  reference  to  the  nation  through  the  Christian 
nurture  of  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed. 
The  second  term,  which  means  teach  or  instruct 
in  what  might  be  termed  the  didactic  sense  of  the 
word,  is  limited  in  its  application  to  those  things 
which  Christ  had  taught  to  the  apostles, —  "teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."  Bearing  this  fact  in  mind, 
then,  we  are  quite  prepared  to  find  that  there  are 
departments  of  education  which  lie  quite  outside 
of  the  special  province  of  Christianity,  and  that  it 
may  be  possible  for  Christianity  to  be  related  to 
such  departments  without  usurpation  and  without 
antagonism.     In    saying  this,   I  do  not  mean  to 


144  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Le^t. 

deny  that  Christianity  must  take  a  deep  concern 
in  this  as  in  all  human  interests ;  but  I  wish  to 
point  out,  that  there  is  a  large  part  of  what  we 
call  education,  especially  in  the  common  schools  of 
the  land,  that  the  Christian  Church  is  under  no 
necessary  obligation  to  demand  the  control  of.  I 
suppose  it  is  actually  the  case,  that  most  teachers, 
even  the  most  devout,  in  our  common  schools, 
have  little  real  occasion  to  introduce  Christian 
instruction  into  the  classroom.  If  the  facts  were 
known,  it  would  probably  be  found,  that,  in  the 
proper  work  of  the  school,  there  is  hardly  any 
Christian  instruction  possible,  and  that  what  is 
given  could  be  better  and  more  effectively  given, 
by  the  pastor  and  the  parents,  in  the  Church  and 
in  the  home.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  that 
Christianity  is  not  a  philosophy.  It  has  no  pecul- 
iar system  of  thought,  or  summary  of  knowledge. 
It  does  not  really  profess  to  teach  a  peculiar 
astronomy  or  geology,  or  cosmogony  or  ontology, 
however  mistakenly  or  persistently  such  a  claim 
has  been  made  for  it.  Nay,  it  is  now  well  seen, 
that  however  valuable  dogmas  and  creeds  are  and 
shall  be,  yet  Christianity  is  not  merely  a  set  of 
dogmas,  or  creed  of  opinions,  but  is  a  faith,  a  life. 


IV-]  To  Civil  Society.  145 

It  does  its  best  work,  not  by  dogmatic  teaching, 
not  by  propounding  theories  of  astronomy  or 
geology  or  cosmogony  or  ontology,  but  by  touch- 
ing the  heart,  arousing  the  conscience,  awakening 
the  spirit  to  the  unseen  realities  above  it  and 
the  immortal  dignities  before  it ;  by  giving  to  the 
disciple  love  to  be  the  moral  motive-power  of  his 
life,  and  by  training  him  to  walk  with  his  unseen 
Guide  and  King.  And  this  it  does,  not  neces- 
sarily by  invading  the  schoolroom,  and  inaugurat- 
ing a  special  propagandism  there,  but  rather  by 
shedding  its  radiance  over  the  life  of  the  child,  by 
sanctifying  his  sabbaths,  by  the  sweet  and  gentle 
ministries  of  the  domestic  fireside  and  the  family 
circle,  by  the  simple  and  loving  methods  of  Chris- 
tian nurture  in  the  Church,  the  Sunday  school,  the 
home.  To  be  a  Christian  does  not  depend  upon 
the  amount  or  the  kind  of  philosophic  or  scientific 
knowledge  we  acquire,  nor  upon  the  intellectual 
training  and  discipline  which  we  undergo ;  but  it 
depends  on  the  power  of  our  faith,  the  complete- 
ness of  our  trust,  the  entireness  of  our  self-surren- 
der to  the  guidance  of  Christ  and  his  Holy  Spirit. 
Let  the  home-training  of  the  child,  then,  be  all  that 
it  should  be:  let  his  religious  discipline  be  care- 


146  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

fully  looked  after,  according  to  the  Church's  plan, 
by  parents  and  sponsors  and  pastor,  and  the 
question  of  religious  teaching  in  the  school  will 
become  comparatively  unimportant.  The  real 
trouble  is,  the  neglect  of  religious  education  out  of 
the  school,  rather  than  within  it.  It  is  the  God- 
less home,  and  the  indifferent  or  formal  or  unspir- 
itual  Church,  rather  than  the  secular  school,  that 
are  dwarfing  the  religious  life  of  this  generation. 

A  candid  examination  of  the  history  of  educa- 
tion, if  it  were  possible  within  the  limits  of  this 
inquiry,  would  go  far  to  explain  existing  educa- 
tional questions,  and  to  suggest  their  solution. 
It  may  suffice  to  point  out,  that,  while  for  many 
centuries  the  direction  of  education  in  Europe  was 
almost  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  Christian 
clergy,  the  tendency  in  modern  times  has  been 
towards  the  emancipation  of  education  from  eccle- 
siastical control.  In  the  Church's  earliest  and 
best  days,  the  clergy  confined  themselves  to  their 
spiritual  functions.  For  more  than  two  hundred 
years  we  have  no  account  of  an  attempt  on  their 
part  to  control  educational  work.  Their  attitude 
was  rather  one  of  helpfulness  towards  existing 
institutions  of  learning,  and  of  a  purpose  to  sup- 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  147 


plement  their  work  and  to  evangelize  their  influ- 
ence through  the  Christian  nurture  of  the  home 
and  the  Church.     The  time  came,  however,  when 
the  ecclesiastics,  especially  in   the  West,  began  to 
discredit  secular  learning  as  dangerous  as  well  as 
idle  and  profane;  and,  with  the  irruption  of  the 
barbarians,  education    fell    altogether    into    their 
hands.     A    careful    study  of   their  conduct   of   it 
will  disclose  the  fact,   I  fear,  that  their  influence 
was  not  always  favorable  to  the  best  results.      Un- 
doubtedly,  we    should    not    be    unmindful  of    the 
large  debt  of  gratitude  which  the  world  owes  to 
the  religious  establishments  of  the  dark  ages,  and 
especially  to  a  few  great  monasteries,  for  keeping 
alive  the  torch  of  learning ;  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether,  on   the  whole,  the  influence  of  ecclesias- 
ticism  upon  education  was  not  disastrous.     There 
are    few  more    painful    annals   than  the  accounts 
which  have  come  down  to  us  of  the  narrow  bigotry 
and    even    cruelty    of    the    monkish    elementary 
schools,  within  which  children  were  taught  little 
except  a  multiplicity  of  superstitious  observances, 
and  learned  little  except  servility  of  spirit.     Under 
such  influences  it  speedily  came  to  pass,  that  none 
but    monks   and  ecclesiastics  attained  to  learned 


148  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

culture  at  all :  the  young  squires  and  cadets  of 
energy  and  promise  betaking  themselves  rather 
to  the  castle  than  to  the  monastery,  to  be  trained 
in  the  presence  of  gentle  ladies  and  in  the  ranks 
of  feudal  chieftains  to  deeds  of  knightliness  and 
feats  of  arms  ;  while  the  children  of  the  peasantry 
and  tradesmen  grew  up  in  ignorance,  content  to 
know  no  more  than  to  be  able  to  mumble  a  prayer 
which  they  did  not  understand,  or  to  keep  a  tally 
of  their  daily  gains.  So  it  came  to  pass,  that  it 
was  unusual  for  a  gentleman  to  know  how  to  write 
his  name,  and  this  at  the  time  when  the  wealth 
and  influence  of  the  clergy  were  greatest,  and 
when  they  had  the  education  of  the  people  exclu- 
sively in  their  hands.  It  is  perfectly  true,  that 
there  were  eras  of  progress  and  improvement,  and 
that  the  influence  of  Christianity  was  then  as  now 
altogether  favorable  to  the  promotion  of  human 
learning.  Even  mistaken  and  bigoted  monkish 
methods  could  not  entirely  retard  the  advance- 
ment of  Christian  civilization.  Spite  of  all  the 
blunders  of  her  children,  the  Church  showed  her- 
self even  then  to  be  the  foster-mother  of  learning ; 
and,  under  her  inspiration,  pious  founders  built 
and  endowed  noble  universities  in,  different  parts 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  149 

of  Europe.  Nevertheless,  it  can  hardly  be  denied 
that  elementary  education,  at  least,  has  been  im- 
peded, rather  than  set  forward,  by  the  mastery  of 
ecclesiasticism  in  the  schoolroom.  At  the  Refor- 
mation a  more  notable  era  of  progress  than  any 
that  had  preceded  it  was  begun.  In  England 
the  clergy,  with  that  wise  practical  instinct  that 
has  generally  distinguished  them,  reformed  educa- 
tional methods  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  it  largely 
under  their  control ;  yet  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
even  there  the  emancipation  of  education  from 
ecclesiastical  management  has  gone  steadily  for- 
ward.1 In  Germany  emancipation  has  been 
pushed  to  still  greater  extremes,  and  under  cir- 
cumstances' less  favorable  to  Christianity ;  while 
in  France  ultramontane  ecclesiasticism  seems  to 
have  lost  its  hold  on  the  control  of  education  alto- 
gether. Without  taking  into  consideration  the 
notorious  ignorance  and  degradation  of  the  masses 
in  the  Roman-Catholic  countries  of  Southern 
Europe,  where  the  schools  are  still  in  the  hands  of 
the  Church,  it  is  evident  that  the  exclusive  eccle- 
siastical control  of  public  education  has  been  dis- 

1  See  a  thoughtful  article  in  the  Guardian  newspaper  of  Sept.  13,  1882, 
entitled  The  Church  and  the  Universities. 


150  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Luct. 

credited  rather  than  justified  by  results.  The 
verdict  of  history  has  been  against  it.  The  bold 
and  heroic  attempt  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  to  re- 
gain the  lost  prestige  of  ecclesiastical  direction 
and  government  in  education  has  failed  in  every 
land  ;  and  history  is  helping  us  to  understand,  that 
however  admirable  a  schoolmaster  may  now  and 
then  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy,  yet  it 
is  not  a  clerical  function  to  teach  school,  but 
rather  to  disciple,  to  baptize,  to  teach  men  to 
observe  the  things  which  Christ  commanded. 

One  disastrous  result  of  the  long  ecclesiastical 
domination  above  referred  to  yet  remains.  The 
monkish  teachers  of  the  Middle  Ages  taught 
parents  to  resign  the  religious  education  of  their 
children  altogether  into  their  hands.  In  this  way, 
as  in  numberless  ways,  the  dignity  of  parental 
influence  and  authority  was  lowered  ;  and  parents 
were  encouraged  to  think  that  the  moral  and  reli- 
gious training  of  their  children  was  a  matter  of 
the  schoolroom  altogether,  and  not  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  family.  This  opinion  still  prevails. 
Christian  children  are  often  untaught  at  home. 
Family  religion  is  often  neglected.  Parents  have 
not   yet    returned    to    their    own    responsibilities. 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  151 

The  domestic  duties  of  the  pastor  are  often  al- 
most wholly  undischarged  and  unknown.  This, 
now,  is  the  dilemma  which  history  has  presented 
to  us.  Monkish  influence  first  secularized  the 
family  or  home.  Educational  progress  has  now 
secularized  the  public  school.  What  is  the 
remedy  ?  I  venture  to  say,  that  only  one  remedy 
is  possible.  We  must  revive  domestic  religion. 
We  must  reconsecrate  the  family  to  its  high  and 
holy  office.  We  must  bring  the  influence  of  the 
Church's  system  of  Christian  nurture  to  bear 
upon  the  lives  of  our  children.  We  must  bring 
the  influence  of  Christianity  to  bear  upon  secular 
education  in  the  public  schools  through  the 
Church  and  the  home. 

Practically  this  is  a  matter  of  immense  impor- 
tance. The  time  has  fully  come  when  we  must 
decide  what  our  attitude  shall  be  towards  public 
education.  In  all  the  States  of  this  vast  country 
there  is  to-day  a  complete  system  of  public 
schools.  No  doubt,  few  of  such  schools  are  alto- 
gether, or  even  nearly,  what  the  best  friends  of 
education  would  have  them  to  be.  No  doubt, 
many  of  the  methods  employed  in  them  are 
faulty.     Yet  this    system,  though   a   purely  con- 


152  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

ventional  one,  is  now  completely  established,  and 
cannot,  under  existing  conditions,  be  exchanged 
for  another.  And,  on  the  whole,  it  is  a  grand  sys- 
tem, the  very  best  that  could  at  present,  and 
when  the  entire  country  is  considered,  be  put  in 
operation.  Our  public  common  schools  are  doing 
a  grand  work.  Not  only  are  millions  of  the  chil- 
dren of  our  own  people  taught  in  them,  and  better 
taught  than  they  would  be  without  them,  but 
other  millions  of  children,  born  abroad,  are  wel- 
comed to  their  hospitable  care,  emancipated  from 
traditions  and  limitations  that  would  otherwise 
keep  them  down,  and  trained  into  some  degree  of 
fitness  for  citizenship  in  a  free  State.  Here,  now, 
is  a  vast  and  beneficent  instrumentality,  which  we 
cannot  hope  either  to  supplant  or  to  replace,  and 
which  practically  controls  the  education  of  this 
mighty  people.  What  attitude  shall  the  Church 
assume  towards  it  ?  I  say  frankly,  the  Church 
should  enter  cordially  and  without  reserve  into 
the  most  intimate  possible  relations  with  it,  not 
only  because  it  is  fixed  and  established,  but  be- 
cause as  things  are,  and  all  things  considered,  it 
is  the  best  general  system  of  education  that  can 
be  devised,   and  because  it  is  capable   of   being 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  153 

made  still  better  by  the  influence  which  the 
Church  is  competent  to  bring  to  bear  upon  it. 
Let  us  frankly  accept  the  fact  that  our  common 
schools  are  secular;  and  let  us  realize,  that,  so 
long  as  they  are  under  State  control,  it  is  not  only 
inevitable,  but  best,  that  they  should  be  so  ;  and 
let  us  bring  Christianity  to  bear  upon  them  in  the 
legitimate  and  appointed  channels  of  Christian 
influence.  Let  us  see  to  it  that  domestic  religion 
shall  be  revived,  that  sponsorship  shall  become  a 
reality  once  more,  and  that  our  clergy  may  be 
pastors  indeed  of  their  flocks,  feeding  and  caring 
for  the  lambs  as  well  as  the  sheep.  Let  us  see 
to  it  that  our  children  shall  go  forth  in  the  morn- 
ing out  of  the  portals  of  Christian  homes,  bearing 
with  them  the  gladness  and  the  peace  of  Chris- 
tian nurture ;  and  that,  when  they  return  thither, 
•they  shall  be  once  more  surrounded  with  all  the 
holy  influences  of  domestic  piety.  Let  their  par- 
ents and  sponsors  and  pastors  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  and  it 
will  not  so  much  matter  if  the  school  to  which 
they  go  for  a  few  hours  each  day  is  altogether 
secular.  If  it  be  asked,  What  shall  be  the  case  of 
those  children  who  do  not  live  in  Christian  homes  ? 


154  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  answer  is,  it  is  the  Church's  special  work  in 
this  world  to  make  their  homes  Christian.  Let 
the  blessed  influences  of  Christianity  radiate  into 
all  the  homes  of  the  land.  In  this  way  teachers 
and  parents,  as  well  as  children,  may  be  reached. 
In  this  way,  and  along  the  channels  of  domestic 
and  social  life,  the  enlightening  and  ennobling  in- 
fluences of  Christianity  may  be  applied  to  our 
public  schools  as  well  as  to  the  children  within 
them.  In  this  way,  at  last,  our  system  of  popular 
education  may  be  made  Christian  in  a  deeper 
sense  than  would  necessarily  be  indicated,  even  by 
ecclesiastical  direction  and  control ;  and  so,  spite 
of  all  disadvantages,  we  may  still  realize  for  this 
land  the  old  promise,  "  All  thy  children  shall  be 
taught  of  the  Lord,  and  great  shall  be  the  peace 
of  thy  children." 

What  has  hitherto  been  said  has  related  chiefly 
to  the  common  or  elementary  schools  of  the 
country.  The  same  principles  apply  to  higher 
education.  We  look  to  the  Church  and  the  home 
to  keep  watch  and  ward  over  our  common  schools. 
We  look  to  Christian  fathers  and  mothers  and 
Christian  pastors  to  keep  the  hearts  of  the  chil- 
dren true,  and  their  feet  in  the  paths  of  Christian 


iv.]  To  Civil  Society.  155 

knowledge  and  peace.  The  same  instrumentali- 
ties must  be  relied  on  at  our  institutions  of  more 
advanced  learning.  Around  each  great  univer- 
sity, Christian  colleges,  halls  or  homes  should  be 
builded,  within  which  the  Christian  youth  of  the 
land  might  reside  while  attending  the  university 
classes,  and  over  which  strong  Christian  men 
should  preside,  not  so  much  to  teach  religious 
truth  as  to  fill  the  lives  of  the  students  with  a 
religious  spirit.  In  this  land  the  educational 
training  of  the  young  has  been  delegated  to  a 
system  of  secular  schools  and  universities.  Be 
it  so.  Some  of  these  seats  of  higher  learning  are 
nobly  planned  and  completely  equipped.  Let  us 
frankly  and  thankfully  accept  the  fact ;  and  let 
the  Church,  released  as  she  is  from  the  work  of 
the  classroom,  betake  herself  gladly  to  her  own 
particular  function,  and  build  up  around  each  uni- 
versity, and  around  the  lives  of  her  children  there, 
the  hallowing,  sanctifying  influences  of  Chris- 
tianity. To  do  this  is  not  an  easy  work,  but  it  is 
the  Church's  appointed  work.  Not  to  teach  the 
triviutn  or  qiiadrivium,  but  to  teach  men  to  ob- 
serve the  things  which  Christ  commanded,  —  this 
is  her  appointed  work ;  and  she  ought  to  do  the 


156         The  Relation  of  Christianity.        [Lect.  iv.] 

latter  with  all  the  more  energy  because  she  is  re- 
leased from  the  drudgery  of  the  former.  And  the 
Church  will  do  her  work  all  the  more  effectively 
when  it  is  once  thoroughly  realized  that  Chris- 
tianity is  to  be  taught,  not  like  a  problem  of 
Euclid  or  an  ode  of  Horace,  but  through  Chris- 
tian nurture,  and  by  the  help  of  the  Spirit  of 
God. 


LECTURE  V. 

CHARITY. 


LECTURE  V. 

CHARITY. 

11  For  ye  have  the  poor  with  you  always,  and  whensoever  ye  will  ye  may 
do  them  good."  —  St.  Mark  xiv.  7. 

r  I  ^HAT  destitution  should  continue  to  exist 
■*■  among  men  has  been  for  ages  the  oppro- 
brium of  political  economy.  All  kinds  of  combi- 
nations and  arrangements  have  been  proposed, 
and  many  of  them  have  been  tried,  in  the  vain 
attempt  to  banish  it  from  human  society.  Phi- 
losophers have  dreamed  of  model  republics,  where 
want  should  be  unknown.  Politicians,  and  trib- 
unes of  the  people,  have  proposed  and  sometimes 
secured  the  enactment  of  agrarian  laws,  the 
objects  of  which  were  to  so  limit  and  distribute 
property  as  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  all.  Vast 
colonizing  movements  have  set  sail  from  crowded 
or  inhospitable  shores,  and  have  driven  their  keels 
into  foreign  sands,  in  the  hope,  that,  under  fairer  or 
more  propitious  skies,  there  should  be  found  such 

159 


160  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

abundance  that  human  indigence  should  have  no 
place.  Malthusian  theories,  Fourierite  plans,  and 
communistic  organizations,  have  been  suggested, 
and  sometimes  put  into  operation,  to  satisfy  the 
obtrusive  want  that  dogs  the  steps  of  human 
progress ;  but  all  in  vain.  The  fact  of  human 
destitution  remains  in  every  land ;  and  we  dare  not 
say  that  it  has  grown  less  importunate,  or  less 
unwelcome  and  menacing  to  the  mere  economist 
and  civilian,  as  the  world  has  advanced  in  civiliza- 
tion. Nor  can  it  be  claimed,  that  the  Christian 
Church  has  yet  propounded  a  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culties by  which  the  State  has  hitherto  been 
baffled.  Both  Church  and  State  have  elaborated 
systems  for  the  relief  and  care  of  pauperism, 
which  have  been  worked  with  a  zeal,  an  intelli- 
gence, a  devotion,  and  a  wealth  of  resource,  that 
have  left  nothing  of  their  kind  to  be  desired. 
Yet  the  stubborn  fact  remains,  that  the  tide  of 
indigent  wretchedness  does  not  abate,  but. is  ris- 
ing, rather,  throughout  the  Christian  world. 

The  methods,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civil, 
which  are  here  referred  to  as  having  been  tried 
without  success,  may  all  be  designated  by  the 
common  term,  corporate,   or  institutional,   relief. 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  161 

And  however  diverse  the  motives  upon  which 
these  have  rested,  yet  it  is  but  fair  to  allow,  that, 
in  Christian  lands,  all  of  them  have  been  honest 
attempts  to  do  good  to  the  poor  in  accordance 
with  Christ's  commandment.  Before  we  proceed, 
then,  to  consider  the  causes  of  their  failure,  it 
will  be  well  to  inquire  what  Christ's  plan  was  for 
dealing  with  human  poverty.  We  shall  then  be 
in  a  condition  to  estimate  the  shortcomings  of  our 
human  methods,  and  finally  to  seek  a  return  to 
the  right  way.  And  the  first  characteristic  of  our 
Lord's  attitude  towards  human  poverty,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  is,  that  he  frankly  recognized  the 
inevitable  persistence  of  it.  In  his  teaching  he 
almost  reiterated  the  precept  of  the  elder  law, 
which  said,  "  The  poor  shall  never  cease  out  of 
the  land :  therefore  I  command  thee,  saying,  Thou 
shalt  open  thine  hand  wide  unto  thy  brother,  to 
thy  poor,  and  to  thy  needy,  in  thy  land."  But 
Jesus,  while  he  did  this,  did  vastly  more.  He 
implicitly  declared  the  presence  and  the  need  of 
the  poor  to  be  the  perpetual  opportunity  and  the 
unfailing  blessing  of  his  people.  More  profoundly 
than  the  elder  law-giver  he  saw  the  social  and 
political  law  on  which  the  fact  rested;  and  he  saw, 


1 62  The  Relation  of  Chris  tia?iity  [lect. 

too,  how,  out  of  the  evil,  there  might  arise  abun- 
dant good.  Yet  the  optimism  of  his  view  did  not 
originate  in  any  sort  of  indifference  to  human 
suffering.  Far  otherwise.  More  deeply  and  ten- 
derly than  any  other  man  he  was  touched  with 
compassion  for  the  poor.  More  keenly  and 
vividly  than  any  other  statesman  he  realized  the 
anguish  of  human  destitution.  More  exactly  than 
any  other  economist,  as  I  trust  we  shall  see,  he 
projected  methods  for  the  alleviation  of  its  woes. 
Nevertheless,  he  admitted  the  persistence  of  it, 
and  based  upon  this  fact  many  of  the  most  char- 
acteristic duties  of  his  system  of  ethics.  It  is  a 
fact  of  deep  significance,  that  Christianity  itself, 
both  as  taught  and  exemplified  by  its  Author,  was 
founded  on  the  law  of  ministry  to  human  need. 
In  order  to  fulfil  this  law,  he  himself  came  into 
the  world.  His  whole  earthly  career  may  be 
tersely  described  by  the  single  phrase,  He  went 
about  doing  good.  In  sending  out  his  disciples 
two  and  two  before  his  face,  he  charged  them 
with  service  to  the  poor.  All  his  ethical  teach- 
ings took  the  presence  of  the  poor  for  granted, 
and  he  constantly  enjoined  ministry  to  them.  To 
do  good,  not  of  abundance  merely,  but  by  self- 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  163 


denial  ;  to  do  good,  and  lend,  hoping  for  nothing 
again,  —  he  declared  to  be  the  highest  human  duty, 
and  privilege  also  ;  since  by  so  doing,  and  only  so, 
might  men  become  the  children  of  their  Father  in 
heaven.  Nay,  in  one  striking  passage  he  identi- 
fied himself  with  the  poor,  and  declared  that 
ministry  to  them,  in  their  hunger  and  nakedness 
and  squalor  and  wretchedness,  was  ministry  to 
him,  and  entitled  to  his  gratitude  and  an  eternal 
reward.  So  completely,  then,  did  he  admit  the 
inevitable  persistence  of  poverty,  that  he  adjusted 
the  whole  of  his  ethical  system  to  the  treatment 
of  it,  and  made  the  proper  treatment  of  it  the 
indispensable  condition  of  his  favor,  and  of  access 
to  the  joys  of  heaven. 

Acknowledging,  then,  the  persistence  of  human 
destitution,  he  did  not  seek  to  banish  it  from  his 
kingdom.  "Ye  have  the  poor  with  you  always." 
But  while  he  profoundly  commiserated  their  state, 
and  urgently  enjoined  the  duty  of  ministering 
to  them,  he  yet  enacted  that  this  duty  should 
be  wholly  voluntary:  "Whensoever  ye  will  ye 
may  do  them  good."  He  furthermore  enacted, 
that  it  should  be,  not  only  voluntary,  but  that 
it  should  be  personal/  and  performed  in  a  manner 


164  The  Relation,  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

altogether  unobtrusive,  and  devoid  of  publicity ; 
annexing  to  this  personal  and  secret  quality  the 
condition  of  his  approbation.  And  it  is  not  less 
notable,  that  he  enjoined  the  duty  of  doing  good 
to  the  poor  upon  all, — not  upon  the  rich  only, 
but  upon  the  poor  also.  All  are  to  engage  in  it, 
from  the  beggar  to  the  king;  the  injunction  to  do 
this  resting  upon  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man.  "A  new  commandment 
give  I  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another."  "Be 
merciful,  as  your  Father  is  merciful,"  "that  ye 
may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven." 

The  mere  statement  of  Christ's  attitude  towards 
the  poor  brings  forward  some  grave  and  momen- 
tous questions,  which  must  be  asked,  and  ought 
to  be  answered.  Has  not  civil  society  assumed 
an  attitude  towards  the  poor,  not  only  different 
from,  but  at  variance  with,  that  of  Christ  ?  And 
how  far  has  the  Church  adopted  the  false  attitude 
of  civil  society,  and  abandoned  that  of  the  Mas- 
ter ?  I  believe  that  the  charges  suggested  by 
these  questions  are  true  to  a  much  greater  extent 
than  is  commonly  supposed  :  and  I  believe,  that 
in  this  fact  is  to  be  found  the  secret  of  that  wide- 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  165 

spread  alienation  between  rich  and  poor,  and 
of  the  no  less  widespread  indifference  of  both 
classes  to  religion,  which  we  all  deplore;  while 
to  the  same  cause  is  to  be  attributed  the  grow- 
ing disaffection  of  the  poorer  classes  to  all  civil 
government,  that  is  one  of  the  most  portentous 
signs  of  the  times.  First  let  us  consider  the 
attitude  assumed  towards  the  poor  by  civil  soci- 
ety. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  department  of  political 
history  more  interesting  to  the  statesman  than 
the  history  of  poor-law  legislation.  Fortunately 
the  sources  of  information,  on  this  subject  are 
abundant  and  easily  accessible.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  that,  for  more  than  two  and  a  half 
centuries,  the  attention  of  English  economists  has 
been  lavished  without  stint  upon  this  most  impor- 
tant subject;  while  for  more  than  half  a  century 
publicists  of  every  Christian  nation  have  been 
engaged  in  gathering,  arranging,  and  discussing 
the  statistics  of  poor-law  relief  throughout  the 
Christian  world.  Manifestly,  then,  not  even  a 
sketch  of  its  history  can  be  here  attempted ;  since 
the  bare  enumeration  of  the  changes  and  exper- 
iments introduced  into  the  English  system  alone, 


1 66  TJie  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

would  far  exceed  our  limits.  It  must  suffice  to 
say,  that  poor-law  legislation,  in  our  modern  sense 
of  the  word,  began  in  England,  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  with  the  Act  of  1601,  which  has  been 
called  the  "foundation  and  text-book  of  English 
poor  law." x  Before  that  time,  there  had  been 
many  attempts  to  deal  with  destitution  by  legis- 
lative enactment ;  but  the  measures  devised  were 
rather  repressive  than  remedial,  and  were  so 
severe  and  even  ferocious  as  to  deserve  the  name 
of  penal  statutes.  One  of  the  worst  impeach- 
ments of  mediaeval  society  is  found  in  the  cruelty 
with  which  crime  was  punished  and  the  inhuman- 
ity with  which  poverty  was  repressed  by  the  State 
down  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation.  Previous 
to  that  time,  the  work  of  poor  relief  had  been 
undertaken  by  the  Church  ;  vast  revenues  having 
been  intrusted  to  her  for  that  purpose.  Of  the 
failures  and  abuses  of  ecclesiastical  charities  we 
must  speak  presently.  With  the  suppression 
of  many  of  the  religious  establishments,  and  the 
spoliation  of  the  remainder,  the  resources  which 
had  been  employed  for  the  relief  of  destitution 
were   no   longer   available ;   and   the   question  of 

1  Fowle's  Poor  Law,  p.  58. 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  167 

caring  for  the  needy  became  in  the  last  degree 
urgent  and  menacing.  No  doubt,  the  growing 
spirit  of  humanity  which  distinguished  the  Refor- 
mation period  moved  the  brilliant  statesmen  of 
the  Elizabethan  era  to  attempt  some  measures 
of  poor  relief  by  law ;  but  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  the  most  powerful  motives  were  the  selfish 
desire  of  the  rich  to  escape  from  the  burden 
of  alms-giving,  and  the  no  less  selfish  purpose  of 
the  civilians  of  that  time  to  pacify  the  realm,  and 
strengthen  the  existing  order  by  stilling  the 
importunities  of  the  poor.  Of  the  many  muta- 
tions of  English  poor-law  we  cannot  now  speak ; 
nor  need  we  dwell  on  the  dreary  evidences  of  fail- 
ure, that  have  certainly  not  diminished  to  the 
present  time,  notwithstanding  the  immense  re- 
sources of  experience  and  practical  philanthropy 
that  have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  adminis- 
tration of  it.  Our  own  American  system  of  legal 
relief  is  mainly  a  reproduction  of  the  English ; 
though  it  must  be  claimed,  that  our  system  is,  on 
the  whole,  better  organized,  and  that,  of  late  years 
at  least,  our  publicists  have  availed  themselves 
of  a  wider  study  of  European  methods,  and  have 
been   able   to  improve  upon  the  English  system 


1 68  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

in  some  important  particulars.  Our  American 
system,  however,  is  so  far  from  being  uniform, 
that  it  must  be  described  in  general  terms  only. 
Perhaps  it  will  be  sufficient  to  describe  it  in  gen- 
eral terms  as  follows  :  In  most,  if  not  in  all,  of  the 
States  of  the  Union,  relief  for  the  destitute  is  pro- 
vided by  taxation  ;  which  relief  is  administered  by 
commissioners  and  other  officials,  under  State 
supervision,  chiefly  by  means  of  public  institu- 
tions, such  as  poorhouses,  asylums,  and  reforma- 
tories of  a  remedial  character.  No  matter  what 
the  original  cause  of  the  destitution  may  be, 
whether  it  be  inherited  infirmity,  or  misfortune, 
or  vice,  or  improvidence,  or  incorrigible  indolence, 
the  moment  a  certain  condition  is  reached,  the 
right  to  public  relief  is  established,  and  the 
pauper  is  entitled  to  be  appropriately  cared  for 
under  the  provisions  of  the  law.  Whether  the 
right  to  such  relief  can  be  enforced  by  an  action 
at  law,  is  a  question  that  has  been  variously 
answered :  but  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the 
claim  of  the  pauper  to  his  proper  relief  is  a  real 
and  substantial  one,  not  to  be  denied  in  the  court 
of  conscience  and  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion ; x 

1  See  Fowle's  Poor  Law,  pp.  6,  7. 


V.l 


To  Civil  Society.  169 


nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  a  refusal  to  enforce  it  by 
a  court  of  law  could  be  justified. 

There  have  been  many  ingenious  attempts  to 
formulate  the  principle  upon  which  poor-law  legis- 
lation is  founded.  One  of  the  most  earnest,  but 
most  moderate,  defenders  of  the  system  admits 
that  legal  provision  for  the  relief  of  the  destitute 
seems  "artificial  and  even  unnatural ;  for  it  estab- 
lishes a  state  of  things  in  which  persons  are  not 
obliged,  unless  they  choose,  to  provide  themselves 
with  the  means  of  subsistence  :  while  those  who 
work  for  their  own  living  are  compelled,  whether 
they  like  it  or  not,  to  maintain  those  who  will  not 
or  can  not  support  themselves."  »  That  such  relief 
is  founded  in  a  natural  right  to  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence on  the  part  of  the  pauper  has  been  widely 
held  :  but  the  consequences  of  such  a  principle 
have  been  so  immediately  disastrous  and  danger- 
ous, that  it  has  been  everywhere  peremptorily 
denied ;  and  the  denial  has  been  "  erected  into  a 
maxim  of  State  policy."  2  The  other  view,  that 
"society  is  compelled,  in  the  interests  of  its  own 
self-preservation,  to  take  some  care  of  destitute 
persons,"  3  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  the  "princi- 

1  Fowle's  Poor  Law,  p.  i.  2  Ibid.  p.  6.  3  Ibid.  p.  5. 


170  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

pie "  on  which  poor-law  is  founded,  though  this 
is  gravely  insisted  on,  but  reduces  legal  relief  to 
the  category  of  a  mere  expedient  devised  in  the 
interest  of  selfishness.  No  doubt,  one  of  the 
motives  of  poor-law  legislation  may  be  thus  de- 
fined ;  but  the  principle  upon  which  it  has  pro- 
ceeded deserves  to  be  placed  much  higher  in  the 
scale  of  merit.  A  candid  examination  of  poor-law 
history  will  prove,  I  think,  that  legal  relief  is  an 
attempt  to  obey  the  injunction  of  Christ  and  the 
dictates  of  Christian  humanity  by  making  a  sure 
and  certain  provision  for  human  destitution.  That 
the  attempt  has  been  a  failure,  I  am  going  to  try 
to  show.  It  is  also  undeniable,  I  think,  that  the 
motive  which  has  prompted  this  attempt  has  been 
largely  mixed  with  selfishness.  Relief  by  law  has 
been  adopted  as  a  cheap  and  easy  expedient.  To 
quote  once  more  from  the  author  above  referred 
to,  even  so  zealous  a  defender  of  the  English  poor- 
law  system,  while  he  does  not  admit  the  truth  of 
the  charge,  that  it  is  "due  neither  to  humanity 
nor  genuine  utilitarianism,  but  to  the  interests 
of  mere  class  selfishness,"  does  admit,  that  "the 
true  statement  of  the  case  would  seem  to  be, 
that    the   selfishness   of   the   upper   classes    took 


v0  To  Civil  Society. 


171 


advantage  of  the  growing  spirit  of  humanity, 
and  made  a  kind  of  tacit  bargain  with  it."1 
Nevertheless,  the  principle  upon  which  poor- 
law  legislation  has  always  really  proceeded,  is 
the  principle,  as  I  have  said,  of  administering 
charity    by   law. 

That  poor-law  legislation  has  failed  to  attain 
its  object,  or,  in  other  words,  that  legal  relief  of 
destitution  has  been,  not  only  ineffective,  but 
actually  disastrous  to  the  best  interests  of  human 
benevolence  and  of  human  well-being,  seems  to 
me  to  be  shown  by  the  following  considerations. 
In  the  first  place,  as  a  charitable  instrumentality, 
legal  relief  defeats  itself  at  the  outset ;  since  charity 
by  law  is  impossible,  being  a  contradiction  of  terms. 
The  moment  relief  ceases  to  be  personal  and  vol- 
untary, it  ceases  to  be  charity.  Nor  is  this  all.  It 
defeats  itself  in  another  notable  particular.  In 
order  to  entitle  a  person  to  become  a  beneficiary 
of  legal  relief,  all  that  is  necessary  is,  that  he 
should  be  reduced  by  misfortune,  improvidence, 
or  vice  to  a  state  of  indigence.  But  the  moment 
he  sinks  to  this  condition,  and  accepts  the  provis- 
ion  made  for  it  by  law,  he   becomes   a   pauper. 

1  Fowle's  Poor  Law,  p.  14. 


172  TJie  Relation  of  Christicuiity  [Lect. 

While  he  was  simply  a  needy  person,  and  before 
he  availed  himself  of  the  legal  bounty  arranged 
for  his  relief,  he  was  simply  one  of  the  poor. 
The  moment  after  he  accepted  such  relief,  he 
became  a  pauper.  There  is  a  distinction,  then, 
between  pauperism  and  poverty ;  and  it  is  the 
characteristic  of  the  poor-law,  that  it  created 
pauperism,  and  thrust  it  in  poverty's  place.  But 
the  pauper  is  not  any  longer  a  poor  man.  He  has 
a  property  in  the  public  provision  arranged  for  his 
support.  He  has  a  right,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the 
bounty  set  apart  for  him  by  taxation.  We  are 
entitled  to  remark,  then,  that  the  poor-law  sys- 
tem completely  misses  the  object  for  which  it  was 
created.  It  undertook  to  provide  for  the  poor 
man ;  and,  behold,  it  has  converted  him  into  a 
pauper  with  a  property  in  the  provision  made  for 
him.  Now,  whether  we  conclude  that  this  is  a 
benefit,  or  the  reverse,  —  that  this  transformation 
from  poverty  to  pauperism  is  an  elevation  or  a 
degradation, — certain  it  is  that  the  effect  of  the 
poor-law  takes  relief  altogether  out  of  the  cate- 
gory of  charity.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  legal 
duty  on  the  one  side,  and  of  lawful  right  on  the 
other.      The  expedient  of   legal  relief,  then,  has 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  173 

failed,  as  an  agency  for  administering  charity  to 
the  poor. 

But,  further,  the  creation  of  pauperism  has  not 
only  failed  in  this  respect,  but  it  has  proved  vastly 
hurtful  to  the  interests  of  benevolence.  The 
wants  of  poverty  are  not  as  well  cared  for,  the 
needs  of  destitution  are  not  as  well  ministered  to, 
as  they  would  be  if  this  device  of  civil  society 
were  altogether  swept  away.  The  reason  is,  that, 
because  society  has  adopted  this  artificial  and 
mistaken  method,  there  are  certain  natural  chan- 
nels of  supply  that  are  seriously  obstructed.  And, 
first,  the  degrading  and  disabling  effect  of  the  poor- 
laws  upon  the  poor  themselves  is  to  be  noted. 
The  strongest  instinct  of  our  nature  is  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation.  With  many  necessity  is  the 
only  motive-power  masterful  enough  to  get  things 
done.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation,  if  rightly 
developed,  will  lead  men  to  look  to  the  future  ;  and 
there  are  multitudes  of  those  who  live  and  must 
live  near  the  borderland  of  want  who  can  be  in- 
duced to  look  ahead,  and  provide  for  the  future,  by 
no  less  urgent  and  inexorable  law.  Now,  it  is  a 
fact,  that,  among  such  classes,  improvidence  is  the 
rule  ;  and  it  is  more  than  a  mere  economic  evil. 


174  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

It  means  self-indulgence  and  selfishness,  instead 
of  self-control  and  self-sacrifice.  It  means  riotous 
living ;  as  all  wasting  of  one's  substance,  be  it 
much  or  little,  is  :  and  this  is  induced  by  the  un- 
conscious feeling  which  poor-laws  are  precisely 
fitted  to  produce.  The  process  is  not  often  con- 
scious nor  always  logical.  The  feeling  is,  that  the 
worst  is  provided  for,  —  that  want,  absolute  want, 
cannot  befall.  The  truculent  saying,  that  the 
world  owes  every  man  a  living,  seems  to  be  regis- 
tered in  a  law  of  the  land ;  and  we  cannot  wonder 
that  it  finds  an  echo  in  many  a  poor  man's  heart 
and  life,  encouraging  him  to  live  up  to  his  means, 
and  to  be  improvident.  And  let  it  not  be  forgot- 
ten, that  the  thought  of  pauperism,  which  is  so 
dreadful  to  a  man  of  competent  means,  is  by  no 
means  so  shocking  to  or  remote  from  multitudes 
of  those  who  live  on  the  very  verge  of  penury. 
Our  poor-laws  have  done  much  to  make  such 
thoughts  possible  and  not  unwelcome.  The 
county-house  with  its  imposing  exterior,  the 
machinery  of  the  administration  of  legal  relief, 
the  right  to  such  relief  which  the  law  confers,  —  all 
these  have  tended  to  break  the  horror  of  the  fall ; 
so  that  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that,  of  the  mul- 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  175 

titudes  who  find  their  way  to  our  county-houses, 
not  a  few  have  been  drawn  thither  by  a  kind  of 
baleful  and  malefic  attraction.  This,  then,  is  a 
grave  charge  against  our  whole  system  of  legal 
relief,  quite  apart  from  any  faults  connected  with 
the  administration  of  it,  that  the  very  promise  of 
such  relief  has  created  a  demand  for  it  by  break- 
ing down  the  self-reliance,  the  foresight,  the  moral 
strength,  of  the  poor. 

Another  source  of  bounty  to  the  poor  that  legal 
relief  has  largely  impaired,  is  the  natural  obliga- 
tion and  impulse  that  move  the  near  relations  of 
the  helpless  poor  to  take  care  of  them.  Perhaps 
the  most  detestable  and  alarming  result  of  the 
poor-laws  is  the  loosening  of  natural  ties,  the 
weakening  of  the  bonds  of  natural  affection,  the  re- 
lease of  families  from  the  obligation  to  take  care 
of  their  own  poor.  If  the  facts  could  be  accu- 
rately ascertained,  a  diseased  condition  of  the 
lower  ranks  of  the  body  politic  in  this  respect 
would  be  disclosed  that  would  be  absolutely 
appalling.  The  aged  poor  are  relegated  to  the 
poorhouse  by  unnatural  sons  and  daughters  all 
over  the  land.  Among  the  poorer  classes  the  dis- 
grace of  it  is  often  not  felt.     It  is  easy  to  plead 


\j6  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

that  it  is  not  wrong  to  accept  a  provision  which  is 
a  legal  right.  And  the  wrong  is  not  done  merely 
to  the  aged  father  and  mother,  who  are  often  more 
than  willing  to  escape  to  the  peace  of  the  poor- 
house  ;  but  the  wrong  is  done  also  to  the  children, 
who  thus  lose  their  parents  in  the  worst  sense,  to 
their  home,  to  their  own  lives,  and  their  own 
souls,  and  to  the  lives  and  souls  of  their  children. 
Happy  the  home  beside  whose  portal  the  aged  sit 
in  the  calm  peace  of  declining  years,  while  their 
sons  and  daughters  gain  dignity  and  honor  from 
God  and  man  as  they  pay  back  in  some  degree 
the  debt  of  love  and  reverence  which  they  owe  to 
parental  care !  and  woe  to  the  homes,  the  chil- 
dren, and  the  land  where  the  aged  no  longer  sit  in 
the  doors  of  the  poor !  And  that  this  woe  is 
stealing  over  our  land  is  not  more  evident  than 
that  it  is  largely  due  to  the  relaxation  of  family 
obligations  which  our  poor  -  laws  have  partly 
brought  about.  The  very  fact  that  he  knows 
legal  provision  to  have  been  made,  and  that  abso- 
lute want  cannot  visit  those  belonging  to  him,  is 
sufficient  in  multitudes  of  cases  to  set  the  truant 
husband,  the  unnatural  child,  the  selfish  brother, 
free   from    the   slight  bond  that  would  otherwise 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  177 

hold  him  to  duty ;  and  so  large  numbers  of  those 
whom  natural  affection  ought  to  care  for  are  con- 
signed to  the  bounty  of  public  relief.  And,  in 
doing  this,  the  home  and  the  family  life  of  the 
poor  are  being  desecrated.  The  most  sacred  and 
humanizing  of  all  the  natural  affections  are  neu- 
tralized among  those  who  need  them  most.  Self- 
ishness is  working  its  deadly  alienations  in  the 
dwellings  of  the  poor. 

In  the  next  place,  the  legal  provision  that  has 
been  made  for  the  relief  of  penury  has  had  a 
chilling  and  paralyzing  effect  upon  the  bounty 
and  charity  of  the  rich.  -The  poor-laws  are  a  wel- 
come and  favorite  device  of  the  independent 
classes,  who  are  often  not  loath  to  believe  in  the 
sufficiency  of  their  own  method.  Moreover,  the 
effect  of  the  poor-law  is,  to  exile  the  paupers,  and 
still  their  importunity.  But,  above  all,  it  has 
changed  the  attitude  of  the  poor  themselves  from 
the  gentle  and  amiable  attitude  of  exigence  and 
gratitude  to  the  truculent  attitude  of  demand  and 
resentment.1  The  result  is  disastrous  in  the  last 
degree,  not  only  to  the  poor,  but  to  the  rich  as 
well.     I  think  it  is  capable  of  being  demonstrated, 

1  Fowle's  Poor  Law,  p.  13. 


178  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

that,  if  the  poor  were  left  to  the  voluntary  care  of 
their  more  fortunate  neighbors,  there  would  be  no 
lack  of  abundant  means  to  provide  for  their  real 
necessities.  But  the  matter  of  providing  for  the 
poor  is  not  wholly  nor  even  chiefly  a  question  of 
money.  The  rich  have  something  vastly  more 
precious  and  helpful  than  money,  which  they 
ought  to  give,  but  which,  under  our  present  sys- 
tem, is  too  often  not  given  ;  and  that  is,  personal 
sympathy,  personal  interest,  personal  friendliness 
and  good  will,  to  be  manifested,  as  they  can  only 
be  manifested,  in  the  frank  and  unrestricted  inter- 
course between  rich  and  poor.  One  of  the  evil 
results  of  our  present  system  is,  that  the  poor  are 
largely  bereaved  of  the  personal  sympathy  of  the 
rich.  And  not  less  is  the  loss  to  the  rich  them- 
selves. They  are  deprived  of  the  gratitude,  the 
friendship,  the  friendliness,  of  the  poor.  The 
softening,  elevating  influence  of  benefactorship 
is  taken  from  them.  Princely  though  their  gifts 
may  be,  and  large  their  charities,  yet  these  go 
through  legal  or  institutional  channels  too  often, 
and  meet  no  return  of  thanks,  or  of  gratitude 
even  :  such  givers  never  hear  the  sweetest  music 
that  ever  greets  human  ears, — the  music  of  the 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  179 

benediction  of  the  poor.  Not  merely,  then,  for 
the  sake  of  the  poor,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  rich 
also,  we  ought  to  plead  and  pray  for  the  old 
method  of  charity  by  love  instead  of  charity  by 
law.  Verily,  it  is  always  and  everywhere  hard  for 
the  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
but  by  pauperizing  the  poor,  and  banishing  them 
in  their  unloveliness  and  squalor,  we  have  made  it 
harder  still  for  the  rich  to  win  the  plaudit  of  the 
Master,  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one 
of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done 
it  unto  me." 

But  there  is  another  resource  of  helpfulness  to 
the  poor,  which  is  vaster  and  more  important  than 
any  that  I  have  yet  named  ;  and  this,  too,  is  ob- 
structed and  impaired  by  our  present  system.  I 
mean  the  sympathy  and  helpfulness  which  the 
poor  would  extend  to  each  other  if  left  to  the 
natural  promptings  of  benevolence  and  charity. 
The  most  precious  of  all  the  gifts  of  sympathy 
and  help  that  ever  come  to  the  poor  man  in  his 
distress  are  the  heartfelt  sympathy  and  help  of 
his  neighbors,  of  those  who  live  around  his  dwell- 
ing. The  nameless  and  numberless  sweet  chari- 
ties of  neighborliness  that  come  in  the  natural 


180  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

order  of  things,  unbidden,  from  those  who  live 
hard  by, — these  are  the  sweetest  and  most  help- 
ful of  all  benefactions.  They  not  only  cheer  and 
gladden  the  poor  man's  lot,  but  they  teach  him  self- 
respect  and  self-help  as  nothing  else  can.  And  it 
is,  perhaps,  the  worst  impeachment  of  our  legal 
system,  that  it  has  done  much  —  far  more  than 
most  of  us  are  aware  of  —  to  dry  up  these  sources 
of  consolation.  He  who  studies  the  condition  of 
the  indigent  classes  is  struck  by  the  lack  of  broth- 
erly kindness  among  them.  There  may  be  guilds 
and  socialities  and  combinations  among  them  ;  but 
these  result  from  community  of  opinion  or  inter- 
est, and  not  from  mere  propinquity,  mere  neigh- 
borhood, and  neighborliness.  We  have  seen  how, 
in  the  multitude  that  live  on  the  verge  of  want, 
our  system  has  relaxed  the  bonds  of  family  affec- 
tion. It  has  had  the  same  effect  in  preventing 
the  interchange  of  charity  among  the  poor.  And, 
in  drying  up  this  source  of  help  and  comfort,  the 
lives  of  our  poor  are  doubly  impoverished  and 
doubly  desolated.  The  poor  man  is  bereaved  of 
the  help  of  his  neighbor,  and  of  the  opportunity 
to  help  his  neighbor.  The  virtue  and  the  grace 
of  helpfulness,  of  sympathy,  of  charity,  have  been 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  181 

made  difficult,  and  sometimes  almost  impossible, 
to  him. 

But  not  alone  to  the  rich  and  the  poor  as 
classes,  but  to  civil  society  as  a  whole,  the  result 
of  our  system  of  legal  relief  has  been  most  dis- 
astrous. The  increasing  alienation  between  the 
two  ranks  of  society  is  largely  due  to  the  causes 
here  suggested.  The  natural  bond  between  the 
rich  and  the  poor  has  been  sundered.  The 
natural  law  which  binds  them  together  has  been 
in  large  degree  set  aside.  We  do  not  often  think, 
perhaps,  how  indispensable  a  factor  poverty  is  in 
civilization  and  progress.  It  is  hardly  too  much 
to  say,  if  there  was  no  poverty,  there  could  be  no 
wealth.  Certainly,  without  poverty  wealth  would 
be  of  little  value.  It  is  no  depreciation  of  the 
dignity  of  even  the  humblest  labor  to  say,  that  the 
more  menial  and  unwelcome  offices  of  life  would 
never  be  done  by  one  man  for  another  unless  the 
need  of  the  one  and  the  affluence  of  the  other 
brought  it  about.  If  there  were  no  poor,  every 
man  would  have  to  do  these  offices  for  himself ; 
and  there  could  be  no  large  administrations  of 
business  or  commerce,  no  domestic  elegance,  no 
learned  leisure,  no  patronage  of  art.     Indeed,  in 


1 82  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

the  true  sense  of  the  word,  there  could  be  no  rich 
if  there  were  no  poor.  The  poor,  then,  are  quite 
as  indispensable  to  the  rich,  to  say  the  least,  as 
the  rich  are  to  the  poor.  Their  fortunes  should 
be  bound  up  together.  It  is  an  unnatural  and  an 
evil  condition  that  separates  them  and  antago- 
nizes them  instead  of  making  them  the  friends 
that  they  ought  to  be ;  and,  whenever  this  aliena- 
tion takes  place,  the  rift  has  begun,  which,  slowly 
widening,  must  throw  civil  society  at  last  into 
chaos.  To  the  question,  then,  What  shall  be  done 
to  avert  this,  the  most  alarming  evil  of  our  times, 
and  bring  the  rich  and  poor  together  again  ?  there 
is  but  one  answer.  It  is  not  by  legal  or  mechani- 
cal relief  that  it  can  be  done,  no  matter  how  boun- 
tiful. It  is  not  by  the  diffusion  of  intelligence 
merely.  It  is  not  by  external  force.  It  must  be 
done  by  flinging  all  classes,  rich  and  poor  alike, 
back  on  the  old  law  of  mutual  helpfulness  and 
sympathy  ;  by  discontinuing  charity  by  law,  and 
relying  on  the  charity  of  love. 

These  arguments  are  sufficiently  cogent,  it 
seems  to  me,  from  the  stand-point  of  our  common 
humanity.  Their  urgency  is  immeasurably  in- 
creased when  we  come  to  consider  them  from  the 


V.]  To  Civil  Society.  183 


stand-point  of  the  Christian.  Our  present  system 
of  legal  relief  is  a  grievous  wrong  to  the  Church 
and  the  cause  of  Christianity.  By  substituting 
charity  by  law  for  the  charity  of  love,  we  have 
deprived  the  Church,  in  some  measure  at  least,  of 
her  noblest  work,  of  her  most  precious  opportu- 
nity. Far  more  precious,  not  only  to  those  to 
whom  she  ministers,  but  also  to  herself  and  her 
ministering  servants,  than  any  ministry  of  truth 
and  light,  is  her  ministry  of  love.  To  minister  to 
human  want  and  human  sorrow,  —  this  is  her 
privilege  and  her  mission.  Bereave  her  of  this, 
and  you  rob  her  of  her  most  precious  power. 
It  is  in  exercising  her  ministry  to  human  need 
that  she  realizes  her  mastery,  and  her  only  real 
mastery,  over  the  souls  of  men.  Only  so,  —  not 
otherwise.  It  is  not  till  the  rich  man  leels  his 
need,  that  the  Church  can  reach  and  minister  to 
him.  No  more  can  she  reach  the  poor  man,  un- 
less she  offers  ministry  to  his  need  also.  Failure 
to  do  this,  is  the  reason  why  so  many  churches 
are  unfilled  by  the  poor.  It  is  not  because  the 
poor  feel  out  of  place.  It  is  not  because  they 
prefer  to  company  with  one  another.  It  is  be- 
cause the  one,  only  appeal  that  can  reach  them  is 


184  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

not  made ;  and  that  is,  the  appeal  of  personal  sym- 
pathy and  love.  It  is  not  by  preaching  merely ; 
it  is  not  by  music  merely ;  it  is  not  by  ritual  or 
the  absence  of  it ;  it  is  not  by  mechanical  guilds 
and  unions  merely,  nor  sham  tea-drinkings  and 
sociables  :  it  can  be  done  only  in  the  old  way  in 
which  Christ  did  it,  and  commissioned  his  Church 
to  do  it ;  that  is,  by  going  about  doing  good ;  by 
carrying  the  gospel  and  sweet  human  sympathy 
and  friendliness  into  the  homes,  the  hiding-places, 
of  the  poor.  And  this  brings  us  to  say,  that 
neither  has  the  Church  been  altogether  blameless 
in  this  matter.  For  a  long  time  the  Church  has 
been  inclined  to  adopt  wholesale  expedients,  to 
rely  largely  on  official  methods,  and  to  substitute 
institutional  charity  for  the  old-fashioned  personal 
charity  of  love. 

The  study  of  religious  institutional  charity  is 
full  of  profoundest  interest.  It  had  its  origin  in 
ecclesiastical  monasticism,  and  owes  its  develop- 
ment to  the  conditions  which  in  turn  acted  on  the 
monastic  life,  and  were  created  by  it.  Time  does 
not  permit  me  to  more  than  sketch  its  history. 
The  cenobitic,  or  monastic,  life  does  not  owe  its 
origin  to  Christianity.     It  sprang  out  of  certain 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  185 

natural  impulses  of  human  nature,  and  had 
existed  for  centuries  in  the  East,  and  for  a  long 
time  among  the  Jews  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 
Under  the  stress  of  heathen  persecution,  however, 
the  early  Christians,  partly  by  the  accident  of 
exile,  and  partly  by  choice,  were  led  to  seek  ref- 
uge in  its  seclusion  ;  and  it  soon  came  to  pass, 
that  the  lauri  of  the  Thebaid  and  the  caves  of 
Syria  were  filled  with  Christian  hermits,  who 
devoted  themselves  to  a  contemplative  life.  Un- 
der the  influence  of  Antony, — a  noble*  Egyptian, 
—  and  other  like-minded  men,  something  like 
order  and  organization  began  to  grow  up  among 
these  scattered  recluses,  until,  by  reason  of  the 
patronage  and  example  of  the  pious  and  well-born, 
monasticism  became  thoroughly  established.  The 
political  and  social  condition  of  Western  Christen- 
dom after  the  irruption  of  the  barbarians  rendered 
monastic  institutions  peculiarly  useful.  They  were 
the  only  asylums  for  a  long  time  wherein  the  de- 
fenceless and  oppressed  could  find  a  refuge  from 
the  cruelty  and  rapacity  of  robber  chieftains  and 
feudal  despots.  Within  their  quiet  and  peaceful 
shades,  moreover,  learning  was  kept  alive;  and  the 
gentler  arts  of   peace  survived  in  an   age  which 


1 86  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

would  otherwise  have  crushed  them  by  force  of 
arms.  Beyond  all  question,  the  cause  of  learning 
and  of  humanity  owes  a  large  debt  of  gratitude  to 
the  monks  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  to  their  mon- 
asteries and  schools.  Yet  the  good  that  they  did 
was  not  unmixed  with  evil.  It^has  been  pointed 
out  with  much  force,  that  they  did  vast  evil  in 
withdrawing  the  nobler  natures,  the  gentler 
spirits,  the  real  heroes  of  love  and  self-sacrifice, 
from  society  and  from  the  economies  of  life,  and 
leaving  the  race  to  be  propagated,  and  its  prac- 
tical destinies  to  be  shaped,  by  the  selfish,  the 
fierce,  the  brutal,  the  cruel.  Not  less  disastrous 
was  the  effect  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  sweet 
charities  of  the  gospel  from  the  homes  and  the 
home-life  of  the  people,  and  the  transfer  of  these 
charities  to  the  wicket  of  the  monastery  gate,  to 
the  cloister  of  the  nunnery,  to  the  asylum,  and  the 
orphanage.  A  celibate  and  monkish  clergy,  and 
cenobitic  sisterhoods,  in  withdrawing  from  the 
homes  of  the  people,  discontinued  the  pastoral 
office,  recalled  the  ministries  of  religion  and 
charity  from  the  fireside,  abandoned  the  dwellings 
of  the  people  to  barbarism,  degraded  the  family, 
and  substituted  the  devotions  of  the  oratory  and 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  187 

the  cell  for  family  religion  and  domestic  piety. 
The  result  was,  that  institutional  charity  took  the 
place,  to  a  large  extent,  of  the  charity  of  house  to 
house  visitation,  of  personal  and  pastoral  care,  and 
of  neighborly  brotherly  love.  So  vast  did  the  evils 
of  the  system  grow,  that  reformation  after  refor- 
mation became  absolutely  necessary ;  and,  in  Eng- 
land especially,  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  had  to 
be  interposed  again  and  again,  to  limit,  to  regu- 
late, and  to  control  such  charities.  Certain  it  is, 
that  the  evils  of  their  internal  administration  were 
enormous  ;  and  no  less  evil  was  their  influence  on 
many  of  their  beneficiaries.  The  dole  at  the 
monastery  gate  was  quite  as  efficacious  as  the 
relief  of  the  modern  "  poor-master  "  in  degrading 
and  pauperizing  the  poor. 

The  day  of  monasticism  is  over,  at  least  in 
Western  Christendom.  No  effort  and  no  combi- 
nation can  ever  restore  it  to  its  old  place  of 
influence.  Nevertheless,  the  evil  of  it  is  not  erad- 
icated, but  survives  in  many  forms.  The  poor- 
laws  are  themselves  a  modification  of  it ;  the  object 
being,  to  transfer  the  administration  of  charity 
from  the  chapter-house  to  the  county-board,  —  to 
substitute   the  relief   of   law  for  the  dole  of   the 


1 88  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

monastery  wicket.  Moreover,  it  survives  in  the  in- 
stitutional charity  of  the  Roman-Catholic  Church, 
and  in  the  tendency  of  all  religious  bodies  to 
merge  their  charities  in  the  same  institutionalism. 
A  careful  study  of  the  Roman-Catholic  system, 
and  of  the  condition  of  the  Roman-Catholic  poor, 
would  bring  some  significant  facts  to  light.  It 
would  be  seen,  I  venture  to  assert,  that,  under 
that  system,  the  domestic  life  of  the  Roman- 
Catholic  poor  is  largely  uncared  for ;  that  family 
religion  is  almost  unknown  among  them ;  that 
their  homes  are,  to  a  large  extent,  unvisited  and 
neglected.  If  one  is  sick,  there  is  the  hospital ; 
if  one  is  orphaned,  there  is  the  orphanage ;  if  one 
is  destitute  and  old,  there  is  the  retreat :  but  home 
is  not  the  sanctuary  nor  the  refuge ;  home  is 
stripped  of  its  sacredness,  and  the  charitable 
institution  is  exalted  and  glorified.  The  effect 
of  all  this  is  seen  in  the  fact,  that,  in  those  com- 
munities composed  partly  of  Roman  Catholics 
and  partly  of  Protestants,  by  far  the  largest  part 
of  the  destitution  belongs  to  the  former.  And 
this  destitution  is  often  outcast  and  vicious,  hiding 
in  slums,  breeding  paupers  and  criminals.  Pas- 
toral work,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  is  rare 


v-]  To  Civil  Society.  189 

among  the  Roman-Catholic  clergy,  as  is   natural 
with  a  priesthood  who    have  no  family  ties,  and 
know  little  or  nothing  of  domestic  life ;  and  per- 
sonal charity  is  swallowed  up,  to  a  large  extent, 
by   institutional    charity.     I    would    not    detract 
aught  from  the  praise  that  is  due  to  the  self-deny- 
ing and  self-sacrificing  orders  and  sisterhoods  of 
that  communion.     I  do  not  deny  that  much  good 
is  done  through  their  many  institutions  and  instru- 
mentalities of  charitable  work.     I  only  say,  that 
these  last  have  been  far  from  an  unmixed  good. 
In  so  far  as  they  have  overshadowed  the  family 
and  home  life,  withdrawn  the  ministries  of  religion 
from  the  dwellings  of  the  people,  and  substituted 
a  charity  of  system  for  a  charity  of  personal  love, 
they  have  occasioned  enormous  evil.     They  have 
paralyzed  the  choicest  agency  that  the  Christian 
Church  can  use  in  winning  the  hearts  of  the  poor, 
and  correcting  the  selfishness  of  the  rich.     It  is 
the    shadow  of   the    monastery  that    blights    and 
withers    the    home-life    of    Italy  and   Spain;   and 
institutionalism  constitutes  the  weakness,  and  not 
the  strength,  of  Romanism  in  America  to-day. 

But    the    evil    is    not    confined    to    Romanism. 
Among  all  religious    bodies,  there  is  a  tendency 


190  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

to  confide  to  religious  organizations  and  institu- 
tions what  ought  to  be  done  by  personal  charity. 
Extreme  Protestants  have  been  disposed  to  follow 
the  impulse  of  that  Puritanism  and  independency 
of  which  we  have  already  spoken,  and  to  make 
the  administration  of  charity  a  political  affair,  or 
a  mere  department  of  the  State.  Roman  Catho- 
lics have  tended,  for  a  different  reason,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  confide  it  to  ecclesiastical  machinery. 
It  remains  for  us,  if  we  will,  to  adopt  as  ours  the 
gospel  plan,  and,  in  working  it  wisely  and  unwea- 
riedly,  to  win  for  our  heritage  the  poor  of  this 
land.  But,  before  we  proceed  to  consider  the 
function  of  Christianity  in  this  behalf,  let  us  first 
inquire  how  Christianity  and  civil  society  are 
related  in  the  administration  of  charity. 

Recurring  to  the  philosophic  idea  of  civil  soci- 
ety, it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  State  will  have  such 
authority  and  power  in  the  matter  of  caring  for 
the  destitute  as  are  delegated  to  it,  and  no  more. 
The  State,  as  such,  is  under  no  inherent  or  pater- 
nal obligation  to  care  for  indigence.  Poor-laws 
are  simply  a  political  arrangement,  a  civic  device, 
whereby  the  body  politic  agrees  to  place  a  certain 
sum,  raised  by  taxation,  in  the   public   treasury, 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  191 

and  to  employ  the  civic  authorities  to  apply  and 
administer  the  same.  It  may  be  granted,  that 
such  power  and  authority  may  be  properly  dele- 
gated to  the  State.  Granting  this,  however,  one 
or  two  important  conclusions  arise,  which  have 
already  been  indicated,  one  of  which  may  here  be 
stated  again.  That  is,  that,  whatever  this  provis- 
ion may  be,  it  is  not  charity.  Whatever  obliga- 
tion rests  upon  a  man  to  be  charitable  cannot  be 
discharged,  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  this  way.  For 
charity,  however  deliberate  and  prudent,  must  be 
both  personal  and  voluntary.  It  must  be  the  vol- 
untary expression  of  an  inward  affection.  It  must 
be  a  pure  and  unqualified  gift,  or  it  is  not  charity. 
But  relief  provided  by  legal  enactment  cannot  be 
this.  The  beneficiary  has  a  right  to  it :  it  is  his 
property.  Legal  relief,  then,  is  not  charity  at  all, 
and,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  cannot  be. 
That  it  is  not  wise  and  efficacious  has  already 
been  demonstrated,  but  the  effort  to  make  it 
efficacious  has  arisen  out  of  a  natural  impulse 
of  our  common  humanity.  Christ  took  this  im- 
pulse, and  transformed  it.  He  spiritualized  it, 
transmuting  pity  into  charity.  He  took  it  into 
his    service,    confiding  to  it  the  lofty  mission  of 


192  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

healing  the  sicknesses,  consoling  the  sorrows,  and 
ministering  to  the  destitution,  of  the  human  race. 
And,  as  knowing  that  a  grace  so  tender  and  so 
divine  could  not  exist  hi  an  atmosphere  of  selfish- 
ness or  officialism,  he  charged  his  disciples,  say- 
ing, "  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before 
men,  to  be  seen  of  them."  "But  when  thou 
doest  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy 
right  hand  doeth :  that  thine  alms  may  be  in 
secret :  and  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  .secret 
himself  shall  reward  thee  openly."  In  a  word, 
he  delegated  this  ministry  to  the  personal  and 
pastoral  care  of  his  servants  and  handmaids,  and 
exemplified  it  in  his  own  life  of  benediction 
and  benefaction  in  the  homes  of  the  poor. 

Let  us  try,  then,  to  understand  that  Christian 
charity  cannot  be  made  a  matter  of  legal  enact- 
ment at  all.  The  attempt  to  do  so  has  been  dis- 
astrous to  poor  and  rich  alike.  It  belongs  to  the 
Church,  according  to  Christ's  appointment,  to 
minister  wisely  and  tenderly  to  the  poor.  This 
brings  forward  certain  practical  questions  which 
demand  our  consideration.  First,  it  will  be 
asked,  shall  our  poor-laws  be  at  once  repealed, 
and  our  poorhouses  shut  up  ?     Since  legal  relief 


v.]  To  Civil  Society.  193 

does  not  accomplish  all  that  is  desired,  shall  it  be 
at  once  abandoned  ?  To  this  I  answer,  that,  so 
far  as  mere  resources  are  concerned,  the  poor-laws 
might,  if  practicable,  be  at  once  repealed.  In  a 
short  time  private  charity  could  be  relied  on  to 
supply  more  than  would  thus  be  given  up. 
Nevertheless,  to  seek  the  repeal  at  once,  or  under 
existing  conditions,  of  so  mature  a  system,  is  not 
to  be  thought  of.  What  remains  to  be  done  is,  to 
make  it  more  and  more  unnecessary  and  super- 
fluous. This,  I  think,  is  a  work  which  we  Chris- 
tians ought  to  propose  to  ourselves,  and  ever  keep 
in  view ;  and  this  we  can  do  only  by  taking  such 
care  of  the  poor,  according  to  Christ's  plan,  that 
there  shall  be  no  paupers  left  in  the  land. 

But  in  the  next  place,  in  the  doing  of  this,  and 
in  order  to  this,  we  must  reconstruct  to  a  great 
extent  our  charitable  methods.  Not  only  must 
charity  be  personal  and  voluntary,  but  it  must  be 
made  to  do  the  poor  good.  And  this  is  to  be 
accomplished,  only  by  the  manifold  ministries  of 
brotherly  love.  Unless  the  giving  of  money,  then, 
shall  do  the  poor  good,  it  is  not  charity  to  give  it. 
If  it  shall  do  them  harm,  we  dare  not  give  it. 
But,   even  when  it  is  good  to   give,   much,  and 


194  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

sometimes  all  the  good,  depends  on  the  manner  of 
giving.  "  Give  alms  of  thy  goods  "  is  only  a  part 
of  the  precept :  the  second  is  no  less  imperative 
and  not  less  important,  —  "  Never  turn  thy  face 
from  any  poor  man."  Personal  sympathy,,  per- 
sonal helpfulness,  counsel,  encouragement,  em- 
ployment, the  teaching  of  self-control,  self-respect, 
self-reliance,  in  their  homes,  in  their  families,  by 
their  firesides, — these  are  the  ministries  of 
charity ;  and  these  must  be  accompanied  by  the 
highest  of  all  the  ministries  of  love,  or,  rather, 
they  must  be  made  a  part  of  the  ministry  of  the 
gospel  to  the  poor. 

What  shall  be  done,  then,  with  our  institutional 
charity  ?  To  this  I  answer,  let  us  keep  it  up 
bravely,  let  us  sustain  it  bountifully,  let  us  admin- 
ister it  wisely  as  long  as  it  is  necessary,  but  let  us 
outgrow  it  as  soon  as  we  can.  Doubtless,  there 
will  always  be  need  of  some  charitable  institu- 
tions ;  but  it  ought  to  be  a  decreasing  need.  The 
more  thoroughly  we  do  our  work  in  the  homes 
and  hearts  of  the  poor,  the  less  will  such  need  be. 
The  orphanage  is,  indeed,  a  blessed  charity ;  but 
more  blessed  is  the  state  of  that  people  whose 
orphans  find  Christian  homes  with  relatives  and 


v-]  To  Civil  Society.  195 

neighbors.     A  home  for  the  aged  is  a   beautiful 
charity;  but  far  more  beautiful  is  it  to   see   the 
old  sitting  by  the  door  or  fireside    of   their  chil- 
dren or  grandchildren,  and  lending  the  benedic- 
tion of  their  presence  to  the  homes  of  the  poor. 
So   also   with   more  heroic   institutions.     It   is   a 
blessed  thing  to  have  a  reform  school,  for  instance, 
to  which  to  send  a  bad  boy ;  but  how  much  better 
it  would  be  to  so  surround  that  poor  boy's  cradle 
and  home  with  good  influences,  that  he  might  be 
a  good  boy  instead  of  a  bad  one.     Reform  schools 
are  filled  by  the  neglect  of  Christian  people  just 
as  our  poorhouses  are  filled.     Christianity  should 
propose  to  itself  this  end,  to  supersede  all  these 
institutions,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical.     They 
are  not  the  glory  of  a  land.     They  are  a  reproach 
rather.     And   when   we    begin    to   feel    this,    and 
cease  from  our  easy  and  self-sufficient  pride  in 
these  things,  we  may  hope  to  return  to  Christ's 
method  of  caring  for  the  poor. 

To  do  this  is  the  Church's  present  opportunity. 
It  is  along  this  line,  as  I  believe,  that  she  may 
win  the  masses,  strengthen  the  State,  and  become 
the  Church  of  this  people.  No  doubt,  the  way  is 
long  and  arduous ;  but  it  is  the  way  which  Christ 


196  TJie  Relation  of  Christianity.     [Lect.  v.] 

pointed  out,  and  there  is  no  other.  Howbeit,  we 
cannot  hope  to  walk  in  it  except  we  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high.  There  must  be  a  re- 
vival of  the  true  pastoral  office  among  the  clergy. 
There  must  be  a  genuine  revival  of  brotherly 
love.  There  is  no  need  of  asking  or  waiting  for 
the  enactments  of  conventions  and  synods  and 
councils.  Such  a  movement  cannot  be  set  in 
operation  by  legislation.  Let  each  pastor  and 
congregation  simply  return  to  Christ's  ways,  and 
go  to  work !  Let  us  first  accept  the  Master's  say- 
ing, that  the  poor  are  to  be  with  us  always  ;  and 
then  let  us  seek  to  gain  and  to  learn  from  the 
Spirit  the  will  and  the  way  to  do  them  good. 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE   ULTIMATE   ISSUE. 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE   ULTIMATE   ISSUE. 

"  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  Jesus  an- 
swered, Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for 
this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth. 
Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  —  St.  John  xviii.  37. 

TN  this  passage  we  are  told  how  the  particular 
-*■  issue  which  is  now  to  engage  our  thought,  and 
with  the  consideration  of  which  this  series  of  lec- 
tures is  to  end,  was  raised  in  the  trial  of  our  Lord. 
He  had  just  repudiated  once  more,  and  in  terms, 
all  claim  to  temporal  sovereignty.  He  had  just 
declared,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  But,  as  has  been 
well  pointed  out,  the  words  in  which  this  renuncia- 
tion was  made,  "not  only  deny ;  they  affirm ;  if  not 
of  this  world,  then  of  another  world.  They  assert 
this  other  world  before  the  representative  of  those 
who  boasted  of  their  '  orbis  t  err  arum  y  l  It  was 
this  implied  claim  to  another  kingdom  that  led  to 

1  Alford,  in  loc. 

199 


200  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

Pilate's  further  question,  in  which,  with  disguised 
impatience  and  sarcasm,  he  asked,  "Art  thou  a 
king  then  ?  "  Nevertheless,  Pilate's  question  was 
not  altogether  sarcastic.  He  must  have  had  some 
dim  sense  of  the  meaning  that  lay  hid  in  the 
reserve  of  Jesus.  He  must  have  dimly  felt  that 
a  new  and  strange  conjuncture  had  been  arrived 
at  in  the  political  history  of  the  world,  when,  at 
the  bar  of  the  imperial  power,  there  stood  one 
who,  though  unarmed  and  defenceless,  and  who, 
though  he  repudiated  earthly  royalty,  yet  claimed, 
nevertheless,  to  be  a  king.  Strange  claim,  and 
startling,  too,  in  that  cruel,  haughty  presence, 
and  within  that  martial  hall !  Strange  and  start- 
ling to  the  Caesar's  representative,  to  hear  that 
there  was  a  kingdom  which  rested  on  something 
else  than  the  might  of  arms ;  which  could  exist 
without  measuring  swords  with  Roman  legionaries ; 
which  earthly  pomp  could  not  overawe,  and  earthly 
power  could  not  take  away.  "Art  thou  a  king 
then  ?  "  It  raised  the  question  which  state-craft 
has  ever  since  been  propounding;  too  often  unheed- 
ing, as  Pilate  did,  the  wonderful  answer  of  Jesus, 
"  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  was 
I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world, 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  201 

that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.     Every- 
one that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice." 

The  kingdom  which  Jesus  repudiated  is  here 
set  over  against  the  kingdom  which  he  claimed. 
It  will  be  instructive  to  contrast  the  one  with  the 
other.  We  have  seen  that  the  first,  as  represented 
by  the  imperial  procurator,  based  its  pretension  to 
authority  upon  a  certain  divine  right.  Neverthe- 
less, in  the  thought  of  Jesus,  its  true  authority,  as 
we  have  also  seen,  rested  simply  on  the  consent, 
or,  if  you  please,  the  submission,  of  the  governed. 
The  first  contrast,  then,  between  the  kingdom 
repudiated  by  Jesus,  and  that  claimed  by  him, 
which  challenges  our  attention,  arises  out  of  the 
fact,  that  the  one  was  from  beneath,  the  other 
from  above  ;  the  one  was  merely  secular  and  civil, 
the  other  was  theocratic  and  spiritual ;  the  one 
was  of  this  world,  the  other  was  not  of  this  world. 
The  distinction  heretofore  pointed  out  between  the 
Church  as  a  theocracy,  and  the  State  as  a  political 
and  civil  arrangement,  which,  however  authorita- 
tive, yet  derives  its  authority  from  human  consent, 
was  obviously  present  to  the  mind  of  Jesus.  He 
pointed  out,  that  the  two  kingdoms  are  not  only 
not  identical,  but  that  they  cannot  be ;   that  they 


202  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

are  incompatible,  since  they  rest  on  principles 
wholly  different.  He  not  only  asserted  that  his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  but  he  proceeded 
to  show  that  it  could  not  be,  by  further  indicating 
the  nature  of  his  own  royalty.  And,  in  doing  this, 
he  spoke  as  one  having  inherent  authority  ;  as  one 
who  was  born  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  this 
dominion ;  as  one  who  came  into  the  world  to  be  a 
king.  This,  then,  is  the  fundamental  distinction 
between  Church  and  State,  between  Christianity 
and  civil  society.  The  one  is  theocratic :  the 
other  is  democratic,  or  popular.  The  one  derives 
its  real  authority  from  beneath :  the  other,  from 
above.  The  one  is  of  this  world  :  the  other  is  not 
of  this  world. 

The  next  obvious  point  of  contrast  is  found  in 
the  difference  between  the  objects  which  are  to 
be  served  by  the  two  kingdoms.  The  object 
of  the  one  is  the  maintenance  of  external  order. 
The  object  of  the  other  is  the  establishment  of 
truth.  The  one  has  to  do  with  those  matters 
of  expediency  and  propriety  which  are  committed 
to  it.  The  other  has  to  do  with  the  eternal  things 
which  concern  the  souls  of  men,  and  which  each 
soul  must  face  and  deal  with  in  his  own  person- 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  203 

ality.  By  implication  it  is  here  declared,  that  with 
this  latter  function  the  kingdoms  of  this  world 
have  nothing  whatever  to  do.  In  the  peculiar 
claim  which  Jesus  here  made  to  exclusive  do- 
minion in  the  realm  of  truth,  he  declared  that  the 
State  has  no  right  or  authority  over  conscience. 
Not  more  distinctly  did  he  himself  repudiate  the 
sword  of  secular  power  than  he  denied  the  right 
of  the  State  to  wield  the  sword  of  spiritual  power ; 
and,  in  making  this  distinction,  he  enacted  the 
real  separateness  of  Church  and  State,  not  only 
renouncing  in  terms  the  right  of  the  Church  to 
control  or  even  interfere  in  things  political,  but 
also  declaring,  by  necessary  implication,  that  the 
dominion  of  the  State  does  not  rightly  include 
the  realm  of  conscience  and  the  domain  of  truth. 
Could  the  distinction  thus  made  have  been  always 
preserved  in  Christian  thought,  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  the  numberless  evils  of  Byzantinism  and  the 
Papacy  could  never  have  arisen  ;  how  almost  all 
the  strifes  and  contentions  which  have  disgraced 
Christian  history  might  have  been  avoided  ;  and 
how  the  real  royalty  of  Christ  might  long  since 
have  been  acknowledged,  even  in  this  world  :  for 
it  is  only  by  keeping  steadily  in  view  his   own 


204  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

renunciation  of  temporal  sovereignty,  that  we  can 
realize  his  true  sovereignty,  and  understand  the 
breadth  and  the  depth  and  the  height  of  his  own 
saying,  that  all  power  has  been  given  to  him,  both 
in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

To  the  capital  question,  then,  How  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  secular  sovereignty  of  the  State  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  assertion  of  the  divine  royalty 
of  Christ  ?  our  Lord  himself  has  supplied  the 
answer.  The  two  occupy  different  spheres,  and 
rest  on  different  bases  of  authority.  The  answer 
which  he  made  at  the  bar  of  Pilate's  judgment- 
hall  was  at  once  a  complete  assertion  of  his  own 
kingship,  and  a  complete  vindication  of  himself 
from  the  charge  of  interfering  with  the  proper 
function  of  the  State.  In  other  words,  our  Lord 
himself,  in  allowing  the  secular  sovereignty  of  the 
State,  and  asserting  his  own  divine  royalty,  de- 
clared that  the  two  were  not  contradictory ;  and 
the  iniquity  of  Pilate's  condemnation  of  him, 
which  has  been  well  called  the  most  profligate 
crime  in  history,  lies  in  the  fact,  that  though 
he  admitted  the  completeness  of  the  answer  of 
Jesus,  and  acknowledged,  that,  in  making  himself 
a  king,  he  was  not  speaking  against  Caesar,  yet 


VI.]  To  Civil  Society.  205 

he  weakly  yielded  to  the  clamor  of  the  Jews,  and 
condemned  him,  in  whom  he  found  no  fault  at  all, 
to  death.  Let  us,  then,  once  more  accept  the 
definition  of  our  Lord  himself,  so  solemnly  made 
in  the  supreme  moment  of  his  arraignment  and 
trial,  of  the  difference  between  his  kingdom 
and  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  Let  us  not 
refuse  to  adopt  the  discrimination  which  he  so 
clearly  made  between  the  authority'  of  the  one 
as  resting  on  his  divine  mission,  and  the  authority 
of  the  other  as  resting  on  the  consent  or  submis- 
sion of  the  people.  Let  us  acknowledge  with  him, 
that  the  one  is  altogether  theocratic,  and  the  other 
wholly  secular ;  and  that,  while  the  sphere  of 
the  one  is  the  domain  of  truth,  the  sphere  of  the 
other  is  civil  and  social  order.  The  question 
remains,  What  effect  does  the  enlarging  and 
deepening  of  Christ's  kingdom  have  upon  the 
stability  and  authority  of  civil  society  ? 

In  the  first  place,  Christianity  re-enforces  the 
social  impulse  in  which  civil  society  originates, 
and  which  operates  to  hold  it  together.  As  man 
is  by  nature  a  "political  being;"  so  Christianity 
strengthens  the  natural  social  appetency,  not  only 
by  removing  or  breaking  down   the    hinderances 


206  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect 

of  it,  but  by  adding  to  it  the  strong  motive-powei 
of  brotherly  love.  I  need  not  stay  to  prove  that 
Christ  first  proclaimed  the  brotherhood  of  man, 
and  based  upon  it  the  new  commandment,  that 
men  should  love  one  another ;  that  brotherly  love 
is  one  of  the  characteristic  graces  of  the  Christian 
life  ; "  and  that  such  charity  or  brotherly  love  can 
nowhere  be  found  but  under  the  influence  and 
administration  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Now,  the 
operation  of  this  new  force  in  human  history  is 
nowhere  so  conspicuous  as  in  the  effect  it  has 
upon  civil  society.  Selfishness,  which  is  the  very 
elemental  cause  of  all  social  disorder,  is  attacked 
in  its  citadel,  the  human  heart.  All  the  disorderly 
vices,  such  as  lust,  violence,  perfidy,  are  assailed 
by  Christianity  at  their  source.  The  love  which 
works  no  ill  to  his  neighbor,  and  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law,  is  supplied  by  Christianity  to  maintain 
and  uphold  social  order  at  every  point ;  and,  as 
an  added  motive,  this  characteristic  affection  of 
Christianity  draws  the  bonds  of  civil  society  more 
closely  together.  The  social  compact  becomes 
something  more  than  a  mere  civil  arrangement : 
it  rests  on  something  more  than  a  merely  natural 

1  Rom.  xii.  10;  i  Thess.  iv.  9;  Heb.  xiii.  1. 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  207 

" appetitus  societatis."  It  is  re-enforced  by  an 
impulse  of  brotherly  affection,  which  not  only 
works  no  ill  to  his  neighbor,  but  which  seeks  by 
combination  and  intercourse  to  do  him  good.  In 
becoming  a  Christian,  then,  a  man  is  made  a  bet- 
ter citizen;  and  the  State,  whatever  its  form  may 
be,  has  its  true  basis  of  authority  strengthened 
by  the  Christianization  of  its  people. 

But  not  only  does  Christianity  re-enforce  the 
social  and  political  appetency  upon  which  civil 
society  is  founded,  but  it  also  exalts  and  dignifies 
it.  A  new  sanction  is  added  to  the  obligation 
of  it,  in  discovering  to  man  his  true  dignity  and 
destiny.  In  disclosing  to  the  soul  its  relation 
to  God,  in  bringing  life  and  immortality  to  light, 
the  transcendental  truth  is  brought  home  to  man, 
that  he  is  more  than  a  mere  "political  animal ; " 
that  his  true  life  is  the  life  of  his  undying  spirit ; 
and  that  all  things  which  affect  him  here  are 
to  be  measured  and  valued  accordingly  as  they 
affect  his  spiritual  well-being.  And,  in  doing  this, 
all  his  social  impulses  are  ennobled,  as  well  as 
made  more  cogent  and  authoritative.  Man  lives 
best  in  this  world  by  living  for  another  and  a 
higher.     The    man    lives    to   most   purpose    here 


208  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

whose  life  here  is  felt  by  him  to  be  a  training  for 
immortality.  It  is  one  of  those  profound  truths 
peculiar  to  and  characteristic  of  the  gospel,  that 
it  is  not  by  living  for  this  world,  but  by  living 
above  it ;  that  it  is  not  by  fixing  our  regard  on 
this  lower  life,  but  by  losing  it  in  our  regard 
to  a  higher;  that  it  is  not  by  seeking  first  and 
supremely  the  things  of  this  world,  but  rather  by 
seeking  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteous- 
ness,—  that  man's  noblest  destiny,  even  in  this 
life,  is  to  be  attained.  And  not  only  does  Chris- 
tianity ennoble  man  by  thus  enlarging  his  horizon, 
but  it  also  supplies  him  with  the  only  energy 
which  is  adequate  to  enable  him  to  realize  his 
highest  destiny,  both  hereafter  and  here.  In  a 
noble  passage  in  the  "  Republic "  of  Plato,  the 
Platonic  Socrates  is  made  to  say  of  the  man  of 
understanding,  that  he  will  look  at  the  city  within 
him,  and  will  regulate  his  life  according  to  the 
ideals  which  are  discernible  there.  "  In  heaven," 
he  says,  "  there  is  laid  up  a  pattern  of  such  a  city ; 
and  he  who  desires  may  behold  this,  and,  behold- 
ing, govern  himself  accordingly."  l  Nevertheless, 
the    Platonic   philosophy   discovered    no    motive- 

1  Republic,  bk.  ix. 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  209 

power  sufficient  to  enable  man  to  realize  the  heav- 
enly ideals  to  which  it  pointed  him ;  nor  have 
other  philosophers  been  more  successful  in  their 
search  for  some  moral  energy  with  which  to  en- 
able and  hold  to  its  allegiance  the  frail  and  wander- 
ing heart.  Christianity  alone  has  done  this,  in 
supplying  to  man,  not  only  a  divine  Ideal  to  love, 
to  imitate,  to  worship,  but  also  a  divine  Energy, 
even  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  guide  and  to  inspire  those 
who  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  enable  them  to 
have  his  mind,  to  yield  to  his  will,  and  to  feel,  and 
repeat  in  compassionate  tenderness  for  others,  the 
beatings  of  his  loving  heart.  Fashioned  according 
to  this  Ideal,  the  man  becomes  a  true  lover  of  his 
country,  because  a  true  lover  of  his  kind.  His 
spiritual  affections  and  appetences  are  all  engaged 
on  the  side  of  civic  peace  and  social  order.  Un- 
earthly motives  are  added  to  those  of  this  lower 
life.  The  man  is  himself  transformed :  and  all 
the  impulses  upon  which  civil  society  rests  are 
strengthened,  ennobled,  and  exalted  at  their  source ; 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  individual  conscience  and  the 
individual  heart. 

Here,  then,  is  the  kingdom  of  Jesus.     While, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  does  not,  and  can  not 


210  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

when  rightly  considered,  interfere  with  the  king- 
doms of  this  world,  it  deals  with  the  deep  founda- 
tions upon  which  the  kingdoms  of  this  world 
must  rest.  Christianity,  then,  is  related  to  civil 
society  as  a  supernatural  operation,  a  divine  in- 
fluence affecting  the  individual  man.  This  is  the 
sole  legitimate  sphere  of  the  influence  of  religion 
in  politics.  It  does  not  rightly  deal  with  govern- 
ment as  such.  It  rightly  claims  no  authority  over 
the  State,  and  rightly  seeks  no  alliance  with  it. 
It  does  not  rightly  undertake  to  deal  with  men 
in  the  mass,  but  with  the  individual  soul.  But, 
within  this  domain,  Jesus  the  King  is  shaping  the 
destiny  of  the  world.  And  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  it  has  been  only  thus ;  that  it  has  been  only 
by  working  in  this  way  from  the  individual  and 
with  him  ;  that  it  has  been  only  by  maintaining 
this  one  point  of  relation,  and  operating  through 
this  one  point  of  contact,  between  Christianity  and 
civil  society,  —  that  Jesus  has  actually  exercised 
in  human  history  the  royalty  which  he  claimed  for 
himself.  Not  otherwise  has  he  wielded  the  scep- 
tre of  his  kingly  power  on  earth.  Not  otherwise 
has  he  undertaken  to  shape  the  earthly  destiny  of 
man.     But  within  this  sphere,  in  the  realm  of  con- 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  211 

science,  in  the  wide  domain  of  spiritual  or  eternal 
truth,  in  the  unseen  courts  of  the  soul,  he  has 
made  his  power  felt ;  and  thus  he  has  shown,  in 
a  far  deeper  sense  than  any  earthly  sovereignty 
could  indicate,  that  all  power  has  indeed  been 
given  to  him  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

It  is  well  seen,  in  the  light  of  these  considera- 
tions, how  entirely  ^  salutary  the  effect  of  true 
Christianity  must  be  upon  civil  and  social  order. 
While,  undoubtedly,  the  tendency  of  Christian 
influence  has  been  to  secularize  the  State,  and 
thus  reduce  it  to  its  true  place,  yet  it  is  not  and 
can  not  be  rightly  in  conflict  with  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  we  have  seen,  it  re-enforces  its  true  au- 
thority, and  also  adds  to  its  real  power  over  the 
conduct  of  men.  Hence,  though  Christianity, 
working  in  its  proper  sphere,  has  undoubtedly 
discredited  despotism,  and  gone  far  to  banish  it 
from  the  earth  ;  yet  it  has  strengthened  rather 
than  weakened  the  true  and  proper  authority  of 
the  State.  And  this  it  must  do  more  and  more 
if  left  free  to  work  in  its  proper  sphere.  All  its 
appropriate  and  essential  influences  tend  towards 
the  upbuilding  and  strengthening  of  civil  society. 
In  our  own  land,  where   the  true  basis   of   civil 


212  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

society  is  recognized,  and  where  the  Church  is 
emancipated  from  State  interference  and  State 
control,  the  service  done  to  civil  and  social  order 
by  Christianity  is  incalculable.  And  this  service 
is  great  and  salutary  because  it  is  rendered  in  the 
proper  domain  of  Christian  influence,  not  to  the 
State  as  such,  and  not  to  the  people  through 
the  State,  but  to  the  souls  of  the  men  who  con- 
stitute the  State ;  thus  applying  its  benign  and 
wholesome  influence  to  the  very  sources  of  politi- 
cal authority.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten,  that  the 
service  which  religion  renders  to  the  State  is  not 
less,  but  is  really  greater  and  more  salutary,  be- 
cause it  is  directed,  not  to  man's  temporal,  but  to 
his  eternal,  well-being,  not  to  his  political,  but  to 
his  spiritual,  good.  Certainly,  we  need  not  look  be- 
yond the  borders  of  our  own  land  to  see  the  truth 
signally  exemplified,  that  civil  and  social  order 
has  no  friend  more  serviceable  than  the  Christian 
preacher  and  pastor  who  devotes  himself  to  the 
duties  of  his  sacred  office,  refusing  to  intermeddle 
with  political  questions  ;  while  here  as  everywhere 
the  political  priest,  the  partisan  preacher,  is  a 
disquieter  of  public  peace,  a  disturber  of  civil 
society.     In  other  words,  Christianity  is  service- 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  213 

able  to  the  State  when  it  is  neither  obtruded  nor 
drafted  into  the  service  of  the  State,  but  is  left 
free  to  work  in  its  own  sphere,  with  its  own  agen- 
cies, and  for  its  own  proper  ends.  The  moment 
it  is  thrust  out  of  its  own  proper  domain,  and 
made  to  do  duty  as  a  political  instrumentality,  its 
dignity  is  debased,  its  beneficence  is  abolished. 
And  the  reason  of  this  lies  in  the  nature  of  things. 
For  the  proper  spheres  of  religion  and  politics  are 
essentially  different.  Political  Christianity  is  a 
contradiction  of  terms.  Christianity  abdicates  its 
high  function,  and  lays  aside  its  crown,  when  it 
enters  the  arena  of  political  strife.  Nay,  more, 
it  then  becomes  an  instrument  of  enormous  evil. 
It  is  not  at  all  strange,  that  the  very  worst  politi- 
cal despotisms  have  been  the  despotisms  of 
ecclesiastical  ministries  and  cabals,  and  that  the 
weakest  and  most  unworthy  rulers  of  the  world 
have  been  priest-ridden  kings.  For  Christianity, 
degraded  or  perverted  into  the  service  of  this 
world,  is  found  to  be  unfit  to  do  even  this  world 
service.  It  is  like  a  fallen  angel,  which,  ceasing 
to  be  the  messenger  of  unearthly  good,  becomes 
the  instrument  of  unearthly  evil. 

The  same  limitation,   arising  out  of   the  very 


214  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

nature  of  things,  renders  it  impossible  for  the 
State  to  wisely  and  beneficently  interfere  with  re- 
ligion. Large  as  is  the  debt  of  gratitude  which 
civil  society  owes  to  Christianity,  it  cannot  recom- 
pense it.  The  benefit  which  Christianity  bestows 
on  the  State  is  a  free  gift,  which  cannot  be  repaid. 
The  moment  the  State  attempts  to  do  this,  either 
by  patronage  or  by  any  kind  of  sanction  or  aid,  it 
hinders  and  obstructs  the  proper  work  of  Chris- 
tianity. For  Christianity  deals  with  man  as  a  free 
personality.  As  the  grace  which  it  announces 
and  conveys  is  a  free  gift,  so  it  must  be  freely 
apprehended  and  freely  received  by  the  soul  to 
whom  its  overtures  are  addressed.  External  force 
can  accomplish  nothing.  It  was  deliberately 
renounced  and  rejected  by  Christ  as  of  no  value 
in  the  kingdom  of  souls.  The  benefits  of  religion 
cannot  be  imposed  by  human  enactment.  Divine 
grace  cannot  be  administered  by  human  law. 
The  might  of  embattled  legions,  the  retinues  of 
princes,  the  pageantry  of  courts,  are  worse  than 
powerless  to  help  forward  the  work  of  Christ; 
and  all  that  States  can  do  is  equally  useless  for 
the  same  reason.  For,  the  moment  the  State 
undertakes   to    deal   with    religious    interests,    it 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  215 

passes  out  of  its  proper  sphere,  and  becomes 
a  tyranny  or  an  impertinence.  Being  merely  a 
human  instrumentality,  organized  and  maintained 
to  serve  temporal  and  secular  ends  ;  confessedly 
unable  to  control  any  thing  more  than  external 
conduct,  —  the  only  influence  it  can  exert  on  con- 
science is  either  to  oppress  or  debauch  it.  Nor  is 
this  all.  Just  as  works  cannot  produce  faith,  but 
faith  must  produce  acceptable  works ;  so  all  at- 
tempts on  the  part  of  the  State  to  assist  Chris- 
tianity by  any  methods  which  it  can  employ  begin 
at  the  wrong  end,  so  to  speak,  and  work  in  the 
wrong  direction,  not  with  the  course  of  grace,  but 
against  it.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  the 
State  cannot  help  Christianity.  Whenever  it  has 
attempted  so  to  do,  it  has  inflicted  an  injury.  It 
was  not  for  nothing  that  Christ  refused  to  even  seem 
in  any  degree  to  solicit  the  favor  or  accept  the  pat- 
ronage of  the  Roman  civil  power.  Though  in  no 
sense  antagonized  to  the  Caesar,  yet  he  well  knew 
that  the  Caesar  could  send  no  legions  to  help  him  in 
the  battle  that  lay  before  him.  The  kingdoms  of 
this  world  cannot  lend  their  powers  to  aid  the  un- 
seen forces  which  exploit  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  most  that  the  State  can  do  to  assist  Chris- 


216  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

tianity  is,  to  refrain  from  interfering  with  it,  and 
to  protect  it  from  all  similar  interference.  The 
duty  of  protection  may  be  "put  on  the  same 
ground  on  which  the  prevention  of  disturbance 
is  put  in  any  other  case  where  men  are  gathered 
in  lawful  assemblies."  "The  disturbance  may 
proceed  from  enemies  without,  or  ill-disposed 
persons  within,  the  assembly.  In  either  case  it 
may  be  reformed  by  ordinary  police  regulations."  l 
Manifestly,  the  extension  of  such  protection  is 
merely  a  civic  duty,  and  does  not  in  any  way 
exceed  the  State's  proper  function,  or  constitute 
an  intrusion  into  the  proper  domain  of  religion. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  all  enactments  which 
are  intended  to  suppress  or  prevent  crimes  against 
religion,-  such  as  laws  against  sacrilege  and  blas- 
phemy, and  for  the  quiet  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Day.  So  far  as  these  have  a  bearing  on  civil  and 
social  order,  they  are  the  legitimate  subjects  of 
civic  enactment ;  but,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  reli- 
gion, the  function  of  the  State  is  strictly  limited 
to  the  duty  of  protecting  religion  from  such  inter- 
ference as  would  hinder  or  obstruct  the  free  and 
proper  exercise  of  it.     The  right  of  the  State  to 

1  Woolsey's  Political  Science,  ii.  505. 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  217 


deal  with  the  property  interests  of  religious  cor- 
porations rests  on  the  same  grounds.  Just  in  so 
far  as  the  Christian  Church  deals  with  and  em- 
ploys the  things  over  which  the  State  has  jurisdic- 
tion, it  is  entitled  to  ask  of  the  State  the  protec- 
tion of  those  things,  and  must  submit  them  to  the 
necessary  and  legitimate  control  of  the  State.1 

The  principles  hitherto  laid  down  enable  us  to 
determine  by  what  method  all  conflicts  between 
Church  and  State  ought  to  be  adjusted.  We  have 
seen  that  the  two  cannot  rightly  come  in  conflict. 
The  one  is  a  theocracy,  under  the  rule  of  its  divine 
Founder  and  living  Governor.  The  other  is  a 
democracy,  responsible  to  the  people.  The  proper 
domain  of  each  is  wholly  distinct  from  the  other; 
there  being  but  one  term  of  relation,  and  but  one 
point  of  contact ;  and  that  is,  the  individual  soul. 
If,  however,  through  mistaken  or  evil  intent,  the 
one  be  thrust  into  the  domain  of  the  other,  the 
invaded  interest  is  entitled  to  resist,  and  to  rectify 
the  frontier  so  to  speak.  Howbeit,  each  must 
resist  with  means  and  agencies  appropriate  to 
itself.  The  Church  is  not  entitled  to  use  force 
or   to   appeal  to  force.     The  Founder  of   Chris- 

1  Compare  Woolsey's  Political  Science,  vol.  ii.  pp.  506-508. 


21 8  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

tianity  himself  determined  this  question  in  Pilate's 
judgment-hall,  when  he  said,  "  My  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world, 
then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not 
be  delivered  to  the  Jews  :  but  now  is  my  kingdom 
not  from  hence  ; "  and  again  when  he  said,  "  Put  up 
again  thy  sword  into  his  place :  for  all  they  that 
take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword."  Nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  the  State  competent  to  wield 
spiritual  weapons.  Nevertheless,  from  the  nature 
and  necessity  of  the  case,  the  State  must  be  sov- 
ereign in  its  own  sphere ;  and,  therefore,  from  its 
decisions  in  regard  to  the  bounds  and  limitations 
of  its  jurisdiction,  there  can  be  no  appeal  to  any 
higher  earthly  kingdom  or  authority,  since  there 
is  no  higher.  The  Church  is  not  a  kingdom  of 
this  world,  and  has  no  jurisdiction  in  earthly  mat- 
ters. If,  therefore,  it  ever  should  come  to  pass, 
as  it  often  has  in  by-gone  times,  and  as  it  notably 
did  at  the  bar  of  Pontius  Pilate,  that  the  civil 
power  should  undertake  to  oppress  or  to  smite 
the  Church  of  God,  the  illustrious  example  of 
sacrifice  is  seffor  the  Church  to  follow.  The 
divine  method  of  resisting  encroachment  and 
wrong,  and  of  overcoming  it,  which  Christ  has 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  219 

commended  for  his  Church  to  follow,  is,  not  to 
appeal  to  force,  nor  to  temporize  and  make  terms 
with  power,  but  is  patiently  to  do  the  things  which 
God  commands,  and,  if  need  be,  to  die. 

That  there  have  been  such  conflicts  in  the  past 
does  not  need  to  be  stated.  That  such  are  even 
now  impending  has  been  pointed  out.  Though 
the  evil  of  these,  as  we  believe,  may  be  largely 
neutralized;  yet  we  dare  not  hope  that  we  shall 
altogether  escape,  either  the  conflict  or  the  evil. 
Much  will  depend  upon  the  diffusion  and  accept- 
ance of  true  views  of  the  essential  relation  be- 
tween Christianity  and  civil  society.  Much  will 
depend,  we  venture  to  think,  upon  the  influence 
which  this  Church  shall  exert  as  the  historic  and 
ethnic  Church  of  this  people,  and  as  the  single 
consistent  upholder  of  the  true  authority  of  both 
Church  and  State  ;  as  the  one  teacher  of  the  essen- 
tial difference  which  divides  them,  and  of  the  one 
relation  which  they  sustain  to  each  other.  Should 
such  ideas  as  this  Church  consistently  and  appro- 
priately holds  prevail,  then  we  believe  that  a  noble 
career  in  the  domain,  both  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  lies  before  the  people  of  this  land.  We 
believe,  that  while  the  distinction  between  Church 


220  The  Relation  of  Christianity  [Lect. 

and  State  would  not  be  obliterated,  but  would,  on 
the  contrary,  be  more  exactly  denned,  the  apparent 
antagonisms,  the  actual  contradictions,  the  possible 
conflicts,  between  them  would  become  more  and 
more  rare,  until  they  would  cease  altogether.  We 
believe  that  each,  acting  freely  in  its  own  sphere, 
would  support  the  other;  religion  strengthening 
the  State  by  re-enforcing  and  dignifying  the  bonds 
which  hold  society  together,  and  society  cherish- 
ing religion  as  the  great  conservator  of  public 
peace  and  social  order.  Nevertheless,  the  condi- 
tion is,  that  both  must  be  permitted  to  act  freely, 
each  in  its  own  sphere ;  the  one  being  a  kingdom 
of  this  world,  the  other  a  kingdom  not  of  this 
world.  The  distinction  between  them  lies  in  the 
nature  of  things,  and  shall  not  be  abrogated  till 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  shall  appear, 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness. 

It  would  be  easy,  perhaps,  to  indulge  in  optim- 
istic anticipations,  to  prognosticate  the  growing 
harmonies,  which,  under  the  influence  of  the  prin- 
ciples here  laid  down,  shall  charm  away  disorder 
in  the  world's  fair  future.  But  the  thought  which 
fills  my  own  mind  and  heart,  as  I  bring  these  lec- 
tures to  a  close,  is,  not  of  the  Church's  triumph, 


vi.]  To  Civil  Society.  221 

but  of  the  Church's  responsibility.  If,  indeed,  the 
conclusions  which  we  have  reached  are  right,  then 
the  Church  must  do  her  work  in  the  old  way: 
there  is  no  better.  She  must  jealously  guard 
against  all  worldly  ambition.  Her  clergy  must  de- 
pend, not  on  their  rank,  or  their  state,  or  their  pre- 
rogative ;  not  on  the  positions  of  worldly  influence, 
which  are  more  and  more  temptingly  held  out  to 
them,  — but  on  the  humility,  the  fidelity,  the  single- 
heartedness,  with  which  they  minister  to  the  souls 
of  men  the  things  which  belong  to  their  peace. 
They  must  be  content  to  be  less  and  less  men  of 
the  world,  and  more  and  more  men  of  God.  More- 
over, the  short  and  easy  methods  of  official  con- 
trol, and  of  all  kinds  of  mere  institutionalism  in 
education  and  charity,  must  be  renounced ;  and 
a  return  must  be  had  to  the  quiet,  unobtrusive, 
patient  methods  of  Christian  nurture,  domestic 
religion,  and  pastoral  work  in  the  homes  and  at 
the  firesides  of  the  people.  Let  us  not  deceive 
ourselves.  The  path  of  duty  here  indicated  is 
arduous  and  unwelcome  to  the  natural  man.  There 
are  manifold  temptations  of  ease,  of  pride,  of  sloth, 
to  beguile  us  from  it.  The  hearty  acceptance  of 
it  would  dismiss  the  Church  for  a  time  from  that 


222  The  Relation  of  Christianity.     [Lect.  vi.] 

observation  of  men  which,  I  fear,  we  are  learning 
greatly  to  love :  even  as,  in  time  of  war,  the  promul- 
gation of  marching-orders  breaks  up  dress-parades, 
and  lays  pomp  and  circumstance  aside ;  while  the 
battalions  march  in  silence  to  the 'front  to  engage 
the  enemy.  To  the  more  heroic  but  more  obscure, 
to  the  more  effective  but  less  ostentatious,  work 
and  warfare  of  encountering  evil  in  the  human 
heart,  of  meeting  it  with  spiritual  weapons  on  the 
battle-field  of  the  soul,  of  ministering  to  human 
needs  and  human  helplessness,  not  merely  in  the 
temples  of  religion,  but  in  the  sanctuary  of  the 
home,  the  Church  is  now  called  by  the  obvious  needs 
of  the  day  and  time  ;  by  the  golden  opportunities  of 
the  hour ;  by  the  richer  promise  of  the  future ;  by 
the  secret  motions  of  the  Spirit  ;  by  the  trumpet- 
call  of  our  Leader,  and  King,  who,  as  he  moves  in 
the  van  of  human  progress,  summons  his  Church 
away  from  the  strifes  and  contentions  of  this  world's 
kingdoms  to  a  nobler  contest  and  a  diviner  service 
in  the  cause  of  truth  and  for  the  kingdom  of  truth, 
the  establishment  of  which  alone  works  true  and 
lasting  good  to  man,  —  a  good  so  true  and  so  last- 
ing, that  it  shall  endure  long  after  this  world  with 
all  its  kingdoms  shall  have  passed  away. 


*> 


nnceton  Theological 


Sem.nary-Speer  Library 


1012  01145  7068 


Date  Due 

MtiMM#4 

'■■*fam*aafi& 

$ 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

